Gun control, global warming, abortion, immigration, pick a topic. Pick a stance.

Well, what are the facts? More importantly, what are the consequences of a policy choice, and who benefits?

I don't know a lot of Latin. Veni, vidi, veci, and the joke "vidi, vici, veni," and the phrase "Cui Bono?" are about the extent. Maybe some other tidbits, but the key thing to cut through BS in almost any situation is:

Cui Bono?

Gun control is a prime example of something sold on ideological, moral grounds that obscure its actual purpose. It is something that is emotionally rewarding to embrace. Oh and the solution is so simple, we just "take toys away from children." Almost every aspect is bespoke ego bolstering.

I'm finishing up a job that takes me through Concord every morning. Through a park, with a sign that reads "Paul Revere Capture Site."

I'm here in MA, awash in the history of the birth of our Nation, and I feel it presently, and I can even put my hands on a lot of it, if I stop a moment.

Lexington and Concord, at present, are extremely wealthy and affluent communities. Violent crime which is only 20 miles away in Boston proper, is of no concern. Black and brown young men are who typically die on the streets of Boston and many other American cities.

Are we going to do anything to address the actual problem in Boston or anywhere else? No. Because some white kids died, and that is political capital to be spent.

What is the cost of freedom, who will pay, and Cui Bono?

The enemies of liberty are the ones who benefit from gun control. They despise the idea of an armed citizenry and thus never tire of pushing their totalitarian agenda.

quote:

Originally posted by roustabout:
The enemies of liberty are the ones who benefit from gun control. They despise the idea of an armed citizenry and thus never tire of pushing their totalitarian agenda.

I'm glad you filled me in, I had no idea...............................................

.



No, I don't me "Cui bono?" as a general question. In fact, the proper application is meant to identify individuals.

So, who are they? George Soros for sure. Who else?

Who are these individuals, and how can they be undermined?

I would agree that George Soros bankrolls a lot of it. Michael Bloomberg has funded anti Second Amendment groups with millions of dollars. The Clintons, Senator Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and other politicians of their ilk carry water for him and other large donors to the Democrat Party. Individual liberty is an anathema to them. As to their deeper psychological motivations, I have no idea. Maybe deep inside they have an abiding distrust of a free society. As to how they can be undermined, it can only be done by voting their lackeys in Congress out of office.

We can vote Soros out of office?

Cui Bono?

Of course politicians benefit, that is why they are politicians. If a clown can go after Arby's, what do we have to do to get real traction?

Man, if you want to weed the lawn, do you mow, or find a way to kill it at the roots?

Arc, these are good questions. The election of President Trump was a hopeful sign. As an individual, one can vote for and contribute to candidates for Congress who believe in our Constitution, and more particularly, the Bill of Rights.

Sweet buttery Christ on a pogo stick, please stop it. We can vote? Oh good!

Man... I do believe you missed the bus with my point on it, try to get on when it comes by again.

Cui Bono or for the most part, follow the money.

I may have to consider it for a bit before deciding otherwise but, as of now on any big issue, it doesn't matter to me who benefits. What matters to me more is whether I benefit by taking any particular side.

Knowing who benefits may help me understand true motivations and how best to formulate a strategy using that understanding to help my cause. But my leverage and ability to influence the main debate (as oppose to sidebar discussions with other peons) is pretty much nil.

On any major issue, the individual is at a disadvantage to truly figure out who benefits amid the flurry of propaganda and misinformation between titans. I make my stand based on my self-interests over the long term as best as I can determine.

For example, in a battle between Mothra and Godzilla, I may pick to be on the side of Godzilla under an assumed benefit for me today. If I am ignorant that Godzilla will foist a worse fate on me tomorrow than Mothra would, so be it. Even if I know today that Godzilla will foist a worse fate on me tomorrow than Mothra, I will still support Godzilla today if that's what it takes to get me to tomorrow.

In the gun control debate, I don't care whether the NRA is in the pocket of gun manufacturers and I don't care whether the gun manufacturers are just focused on selling their guns and they don't give a damn about the second amendment.

What I care about is that I perceive a benefit for me to help continue the free exercise of my rights described in the second amendment. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

If I am dangling on the side of a cliff barely hanging to a bush and I see a hand reaching down to pull me up, I am going to grab that hand with all my might even though his motivation is to benefit himself by rescuing me from death in order to sell me as a slave. At that moment, my main concern is to get the benefit of avoiding death by falling off a cliff. I'll deal with the enslavement when I get to that point but it would be premature to consider the issue while I'm still dangling off the side of the cliff.

Cui Bono? Those that hate America and the freedom it provides. Gun control is just another way to undermine and destroy one of the foundational blocks of our freedom.

This past weekend I weeded my yard.

Hands and knees for nearly 10 hours covering 10,000 square feet.

Stuffed a 42 gallon bag to 60 lbs.

Yeah, I could have mowed over it and seen instant results but of no lasting consequence.

Pulling weeds is not easy, and it is not fast, but most effective.

You are absolutely correct, we have to identify them, and deliberately remove each one at the roots.

Social engineers who can implement their genius unopposed and create a better world for them to lord over. Their ascendancy is the natural and just order.

Arc, I always find these threads and comments you make extremely interesting, because I know what you mean and how you feel. My trip to Boston to visit my sister, and then the subsequent visit to Lexington and Concord, was what sparked my interest in gun ownership in my early 20s.

You can feel the pride in the national heritage in Boston and outlying areas. Traveling in and around Uxbridge and Whitinsville, you can't miss the low stone or picket walls that seem to saunter through the hilly vistas which are quite literally peppered with historic signs and markers. The saltbox colonials stand guard over meandering roads that clearly graduated from tiny horse or wagon paths at some point.

That doesn't even cover most of the people I know or come into contact with when I'm out there. The pride in the area and its history is tangible. It's a bit similar to how an orange stays with you, even after you've peeled and eaten it. People can distill it down to tribalism if they want; however, when I was in a home out there, and the subject of the Boston Bombing (or the Red Sox for that matter) comes up, the men in the room seem to be drawn to the conversation. They gather around and the air takes on a quality that probably resembles an English Pub moments before fists start flying over soccer, and it's something I always want to be a part of. It's as if all of what it means to be a man is being leached out of the hiding places in my soul, and it's just yearning to protect everything I love, and topple all that is unjust and evil.

It sounds silly, but it's important to understand that this is where the dichotomy always enters the picture.

Most of the guys in the room probably voted for Hillary, and while half are probably gun-owners, even that half would probably recite something about how there needs to be more laws or more hurdles to ownership. These are the guys that have actually been through the FOID process in MA. They've actually had to shop for MA-legal pistols or rifles. These aren't stupid people.

So where's the disconnect?

Any conversation we have is close to impossible, because anything political is ignored. Anything deep, such as the "Do you own your life?" and all of the paths I take regarding the worth of their lives and how they trade their life for the means to feed and cloth their families.... they agree with all of it.

"But dat Hillary doh." "I'm not a single issue voter." "Guns can't be the last word." "Doesn't *insert R here* hate black people?"

It drives me nuts because it's deeper than that. It's always deeper than that.

There's a decay to the idea that "I need to understand this" and "I need to be responsible to act on this". Life is insulated and easy.

I even commented in a different thread recently, regarding the questions that the media never asks anymore. "But is it true?" "But does it work?" "But what do you mean?" Everything is vague and full of "supposedly", "probable", "people are saying", and "could lead to"... no one is asking the empirical questions that actually retrieve data, but more importantly: make people think.

quote:

Man, if you want to weed the lawn, do you mow, or find a way to kill it at the roots?
Arc.

How?

For the most part we don't even know the names of the foot soldiers of the bureaucratic swamp.
Lois Lerner is one. Before the Tea Party started fighting back against the way it was unfairly singled out and denied the tax status granted other groups like it... no one knew who Lois Lerner was. She retired with a big fat pension, on our dime.
Andrew McCabe? Similar story.
They benefit... but there are thousands more whose names we don't even know who benefit.

Cui bono? My answer transcends life. I think there is a single source of intelligent evil with a plan to captivate the souls of men out of spite among other motives. The players in life are many, diverse and diffuse. Law abiding armed individuals have one central organization called the NRA. Those who work to disarm us combine and operate in secret mostly. They can target the NRA because it is one overt entity. We struggle to target them because they are diffuse and camouflaged. Sure, we can generalize by targeting the Democrat party, but it is so much more than gun control; a beast with 100s of heads. It's not the source anyway but a method. And how does one target the real source of evil when it transcends life where we are able to operate? It's not impossible, but we have fallen so far behind, it would take generations to refine it out of our culture. That would take concerted and disciplined effort with a centralized moral plan. Uh oh......

Why does evil want us disarmed? All the easier to captivate you, my dear.....

“emotionally rewarding to embrace“ IMO, Michael Bloomberg and his ilk are not looking to gain financially and guns are a “feel good” target for the gentle class. As to the politicians and actors, they just want media attention.

One may say I am not “woke”, but I always look for the “cui bono”. That said, I don’t think that the leaders of the gun control movement also have a master plan to subrogate US citizens and march Mexican storm troopers down the streets. Other than to collect our guns. Except Bernie.

I am more cynical than you, Arc. I see these issues as merely fundraising issues for the political class and therefore a means to retain power. Whether they really agree ideologically is secondary to the money created by parroting the talking points. Many in the progressive base may be true believers, but for their political leaders it's merely an expedient means to an end.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Cui bono? My answer transcends life. I think there is a single source of intelligent evil with a plan to captivate the souls of men out of spite among other motives. The players in life are many, diverse and diffuse. Law abiding armed individuals have one central organization called the NRA. Those who work to disarm us combine and operate in secret mostly. They can target the NRA because it is one overt entity. We struggle to target them because they are diffuse and camouflaged. Sure, we can generalize by targeting the Democrat party, but it is so much more than gun control; a beast with 100s of heads. It's not the source anyway but a method. And how does one target the real source of evil when it transcends life where we are able to operate? It's not impossible, but we have fallen so far behind, it would take generations to refine it out of our culture. That would take concerted and disciplined effort with a centralized moral plan. Uh oh......

Why does evil want us disarmed? All the easier to captivate you, my dear.....

Freedom is precious, and even surrounded by history I think many have forgotten. The prosperity and safety they have enjoyed mean that they perceive words as violence. We've done well in this country to in 2018 have more suicides than homicides, and where so many have never personally experienced violence.

I think you're making this a little more complex than it is. Evil will always be present in the hearts of men, but it is not insurmountable. What I mean to say, is that it's an every day effort, and I don't think that we've "fallen so far behind." Part of the problem is that among people who support gun control, they believe we've progressed so far ahead.

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:
“emotionally rewarding to embrace“ IMO, Michael Bloomberg and his ilk are not looking to gain financially and guns are a “feel good” target for the gentle class. As to the politicians and actors, they just want media attention.

One may say I am not “woke”, but I always look for the “cui bono”. That said, I don’t think that the leaders of the gun control movement also have a master plan to subrogate US citizens and march Mexican storm troopers down the streets. Other than to collect our guns. Except Bernie.

I really hate the term "woke." I'll throw it in the trash with "mindfulness."

No, I don't think that most Leftists are pushing gun control with the aim to subjugate. I do think they are removed by luxury from the purpose and meaning of the Constitution and what Freedom is. Such that they will use the Government to strip rights from the people, allowing someone in the future to stuff us all in boxcars.

quote:

Originally posted by jigray3:
I am more cynical than you, Arc. I see these issues as merely fundraising issues for the political class and therefore a means to retain power. Whether they really agree ideologically is secondary to the money created by parroting the talking points. Many in the progressive base may be true believers, but for their political leaders it's merely an expedient means to an end.

I'm pretty cynical of your claim you're more cynical.

Gun control is a finely crafted political tool at this point, to be sure. It is well suited to a politician, because it sounds good, allegedly delivers safety, and step three, profit. You are correct it is a fund raising tool and virtue signalling device. People love easy solutions. When it involves something that is foreign and a right they don't believe they need, additionally they are not affected by any of the consequences. Until violent crime spikes after gun control goes into effect, as it has in all the countries they like to point to as "successes."

To the leftist base, gun control is a tenant of the faith. This latest campaign for gun-control is about giving them an issue to coalesce around. A reason to vote out the heartless Republicans, who won't allow laws to be passed that will "keep them safe". This is about making such a big issue out of the Florida school shooting that the unaffiliated voters will buy into the narrative and vote Democrat this election.

It's not really about gun-control, per se. It's about getting votes in the November election. If they get some gun-control laws passed, or frighten some milquetoast Republicans into supporting some gun-control, that's a windfall.

The kids, the attacks on the NRA, this was all set up months ago, waiting for the next mass shooting to occur to take advantage of it. Why attack the NRA? The NRA was seen as being instrumental in putting Trump into office (whether true or not). So it has to be demonized, and thus neutralized. This strategy may not have the effect the left planned on. However, we'll find that out on November 7th.

ETA: I also think that neither Party want's to really solve address the issue of violence, as it pertains to gun-control. There's too much political capitol in it for both sides. Look at every mass-shooting we've had over the past 9 years (if not longer). As soon as it happens, each side goes to their corners, and then it's two weeks to a month of "debate" on the topic. As our side does, I'm sure the anti-gunners throw money and support to their organizations, and their political party. To the political class, it's a boon.

It has been too long since we had a bench clearing war.

We have grown fat and lazy as a country - too full of ourselves and confident that certain ‘rights’ we enjoy were obtained for ‘free’.

Yes, there have been small conflicts since the last “big one”, but not one that has affected nearly everyone in the country. Now when we fight, the person on the street has no idea.

quote:

Originally posted by Storm:

ETA: I also think that neither Party want's to really solve address the issue of violence, as it pertains to gun-control. There's too much political capitol in it for both sides. Look at every mass-shooting we've had over the past 9 years (if not longer). As soon as it happens, each side goes to their corners, and then it's two weeks to a month of "debate" on the topic. As our side does, I'm sure the anti-gunners throw money and support to their organizations, and their political party. To the political class, it's a boon.

"Gun violence," has nothing to do with guns, and is a complex socioeconomic issue. Neither party is set up to actually solve the problems that are the root of gun violence. What is the root? In essence, poverty. An example would be Massachusetts. Why is gun crime low here? Is it the laws? No. It's the economic prosperity. Is that prosperity uniform? No, but the pockets of violence that exist serve the narrative of "we need more gun laws," and the black and brown kids dying have no real voice.

The issue of who are the main victims, and what voice they have, is also a fundamental problem. As in, the Black community is for the most part convinced that the Democrats are their party. If you're reading this here, then you know that historically that is not true.

This is a handicapped issue for any Republican, because the reasons to support gun rights are complex, with history and deep consequences, but when white kids die, you're a monster.

Point out that black and brown young men make up most homicides, and that suicide deaths of mostly white men surpass those homicides, and you're just "avoiding the issue." When in fact, not recognizing these facts, is avoidance.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
It has been too long since we had a bench clearing war.

We have grown fat and lazy as a country - too full of ourselves and confident that certain ‘rights’ we enjoy were obtained for ‘free’.

Yes, there have been small conflicts since the last “big one”, but not one that has affected nearly everyone in the country. Now when we fight, the person on the street has no idea.

Lets also keep in mind that we have an all volunteer military. While those folks come from every state and have diverse backgrounds, the left freely takes a shit on them as backwards hicks who can't get any other employment. Or they're drunk on national pride. They'll support the troops but not the war, but discriminate against veterans.

At the same time, they expect police officers to "serve and protect," meanwhile holding them in disdain, as another class of people motivated by national pride, a thirst for power, or just too dumb to get a real job.

Isn't it interesting that in the "gun control" debate, absolute trust is put in the abilities of The State to keep us safe and mete out violence on our behalf? Meanwhile, cops only shoot dogs and black men in the back, and our military is full of blood thirsty morons?

We'll just add to all this, the PC though-control microaggression fuckery. I smell a fascism of feelings. One that wants The State to have all the power and responsibility, while the people are "free" to not be "emotionally challenged.

In 2018, it's somewhere between Stalinist Russia and The Matrix that these people really want. If we don't take a hard look at what is going on in Europe, it'll be here soon.

Who'd like some Communism with a side of Sharia Law? Not me.