Guns, Drugs, and inconsistencies.

[PhotonicLaceration]

So, here's something that I just don't quite get. Those on the left say we need to outlaw guns. Those on the right often like the war on drugs.

Funny thing is, is that so called liberals defend drugs for many of the same reasons that so called conservatives defend guns. So, what's the deal here? How can two people of opposite political stature be blind about one thing and not the other.

A quick glance at history will demonstrate that the prohibition was useless, and that the war on drugs is a huge failure. A quick look at guns will demonstrate similarity.

People who want something, get it. Criminals don't obey the law, that's why they're called criminals, and bans on contraband are proven ineffective in the free world. You can grow marijuana in your backyard, or make yourself a single shot zipgun in 20 minutes with household supplies, or a machinegun with a welding utility, two tubes of different diameters, several washers, springs and cutting tools in five hours. Even modern ammunition can be reloaded, bullets casted, brass shaped, and the chemicals for improvised explosives in the use of "muzzleloading" improvised explosives created from a trip to the local drug store.

The mafia became healthy because of alcohol in the prohibition, and most organized crime today deals with the importation and production of narcotics. It's no different for guns. That's how the blackmarket thrives, is by importing what the people want.

The Netherlands shows that legalized regulated narcotics results in less narcotics use overall. The supply of guns for criminals is infinite. The vast majority of guns used in crime are stolen from police, imported from other countries, or home-made.

School-based familiarization with firearms in countries such as Israel and Switzerland, who both allow the populace to own fully automatic weaponry have also demonstrated that there is no link to the armed populace and increased crime.

If you took the money that the BATFE and the DEA spent on the war on crime and the enforcement of restrictions on firearms, and used it to educate people of the danger of drugs, and to instruct basic firearms safety courses, and marksmanship it would undoubtedly remove large amounts of crime from that sprouts directly from the supply of contraband. (which can be an EXTREMELY profitable business)

In addition, it would increase the freedom of Americans, who should be restricted by no laws that are unneccessary and innefective.

 

[Columbusite]

I'm a liberal, but I'm for people owning guns and also for ending the drug war. Since most people are good, law abiding citizens it is much more beneficial that they are allowed to carry arms. The positives way outdo the negatives. As for drugs, I am all for legalizing marijuana, which simply isn't toxic enough like alcohol or cigarettes to kill you. In fact, not a single person has died from overdosing on marijuana, since you can't. It simply isn't possible. Not to mention that the federal government itself is currently sending a small number of people medical marijuana down from 30 in 1978 (the others have since died). Of course, they'd rather you didn't know that.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The so-called "War on Drugs" isn't about keeping weak people off drugs, it's about expanding government control.

Thanks to illegal drugs and the paranoia that successful propaganda has created, police agencies can seize cash, vehicles, and property they allege is related to the drug trade. It's up to the accused to prove his innocence, and until he does, he can't regain his property. So much for the silly notion of innocent until proven guilty.

The gang wars over drug turf and all the related crimes in the drug culture mean naturally that police budgets have to grow to cover it. The unions just love that, and so do the politicians.

And the prison lobbies, the guards and the operators, hell, what's better than mandatory sentences on first time drug offenders with no violent history? There's just truckloads of money to be made off drugs, and I'm not even talking about the wholesale and retail sides of the business.

As for guns, politicians on the left are fully aware of the import of Federalist 28 (or is it 29?) in which it is carefully explained that the primary reason to keep arms in the hands of the civillians is to have a means to control the politicians if they get uppity. Note well that the small arms banned by DiFi and the rest of her accomplices in the Senate were weapons that would have been useful in a revolt, not a liquor store robbery.

Not to mention that the leftists need as many people dependent on them as possible, so stealing the people's guns is a great way of justifying more cops.

 

[Binary_Digit]

So, here's something that I just don't quite get. Those on the left say we need to outlaw guns. Those on the right often like the war on drugs.

Funny thing is, is that so called liberals defend drugs for many of the same reasons that so called conservatives defend guns. So, what's the deal here? How can two people of opposite political stature be blind about one thing and not the other.

From the conservative point of view, I think the difference is there are legitimate reasons to have guns, but there aren't legitimate reasons to have drugs (excepting medical reasons). From the liberal point of view, I think the difference is the abuse of guns directly affects unwilling victims, while the abuse of drugs only directly affects the user.

 

[purplehaze]

When there is such a huge profit margin to be made in the black market with drugs and firearms, no law is going to be able to stop the trade from happening. Prohibition proved this point. I don't do drugs, or own a gun, however I don't think the government should be able to tell anyone they can't do these things if they choose to. Furthermore it doesn't have much of an impact when they do tell society we can't do these things.

As long as the demand is there the supply will find its way in. In my opinion the war on drugs is a huge waste of money and is having little to no impact. If just a fraction of that money was spent on drug education the problem would be lessend. Instead of saying "drugs are bad mmkay" and then putting first offenders in jail for years, extensive education programs in school and on cable networks would be much more effective. When people see the reality of hard core drugs they are smart enough not to start. Take for instance the hbo/showtime documentarys that follow drug users around for years and show them completing rehab after rehab with high hopes, just to get rehooked a month later. These had a larger impact on me than any of the carebare crap they showed during health class in school. As far as guns. There was plenty of crime and murder going on before the handgun was around in large numbers. Keeping people from owning one is not going to stop crime.

Akhbar
Thanks to illegal drugs and the paranoia that successful propaganda has created, police agencies can seize cash, vehicles, and property they allege is related to the drug trade. It's up to the accused to prove his innocence, and until he does, he can't regain his property. So much for the silly notion of innocent until proven guilty.

And the prison lobbies, the guards and the operators, hell, what's better than mandatory sentences on first time drug offenders with no violent history? There's just truckloads of money to be made off drugs, and I'm not even talking about the wholesale and retail sides of the business.

Thats an interesting view-point. I never thought of the jobs/income that were created through enforcing this "war on drugs an guns". However, I would be very suprised if the jobs created, and other positive economic effects would be higher than the cost the government is spending on it. The cost of housing the inmates in a jail by itself is higher than the salaries of all those working at that facility.

The gang wars over drug turf and all the related crimes in the drug culture mean naturally that police budgets have to grow to cover it. The unions just love that, and so do the politicians

Why do you say politicans would want to spend their budgets on police salary opposed to community development and other things they want to get done?

 

[Canuck]

When there is such a huge profit margin to be made in the black market with drugs and firearms, no law is going to be able to stop the trade from happening. Prohibition proved this point. I don't do drugs, or own a gun, however I don't think the government should be able to tell anyone they can't do these things if they choose to. Furthermore it doesn't have much of an impact when they do tell society we can't do these things.

RUBBISH

when your children pack guns to school ,and plant bombs in the school yard.
your arguments are foolish

restrictions on all fire arms can be implemented
if the govt. had the will and the backing of the people
but it doesn't help when washed old ACTORS from the westerns
SAY from my cold hands
do you listen to the children who go to school and witness gun crimes
or play in the playground and find out about cocaine at the age of 10
and mandate reforms despite what washed up ators may incite
and take guns from their cold dead hands if it has to be that way

ask the police that spend all their time on the streets getting shot at and arresting crack addicts for their opinion
PErhaps if the police didnt have to worry about guns and crack heads
they could do more for homeland security and less taking care of your kids

 

[DHard3006]

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Funny thing is, is that so called liberals defend drugs for many of the same reasons that so called conservatives defend guns.

Funny thing is the issue is the “right” to bear arms, not guns. I scanned over the constitution
and nowhere can I find a right that defends the use recreational drugs.

 

[purplehaze]

Canuck - do you think that if guns were made illegal the psychos who commit crime would be unable to do so? Like if you tell someone that wants to commit murder it is illegal they wont do it? People that do these things don't do so because they are logical thinkers. There is something wrong with them mentally to be capable of killing someone else, and the fact that a gun is or is not legal will never change that.

As far as guns in school. This can and is being regulated. With metal detectors in a lot of schools and security personel working in highschools. This has nothing to do with whether or not guns are legal. You can restrict where you are able to carry firearms very easily with security and metal detectors, while still keeping it legal to own a gun. If someone is crazy enough to want to shoot up a school, post office, or other gov facility, they will be able to find a means to do so no matter what the law is.

PErhaps if the police didnt have to worry about guns and crack heads
they could do more for homeland security and less taking care of your kids

A great point indeed, which is the same one im making here so we agree.

If drugs were legal police wouldn't have to get shot at trying to arrest these people. We wouldn't be wating resources on this non-sense and would be able to refocus those on homeland security.

 

[Liberal Pot Smoker]

Ok, first of all let me start out with the fact that marijuana isnt a drug. Now then, the War on Drugs is as stupid as the War on Terrorism. I live in the suburbs and the easiest thing to buy in my neighborhood is not beer, cigarettes, or even food. Its marijuana, my personal drug of choice. So the War on Drugs must have just passed over my town. Your not going to stop the drugs and its a waste of resources if you do. I think of it this way, the government should legalize all drugs. Make regualtions and such, comparred to alchohol. You mush be 21 years old to buy drugs, and you also must have a licence to sell them. If this happens then places that sell alchohol could also sell drugs. This would take many dealers off the streets because they wouldn't be able to compete with local stores. Then they can also make laws about "public stonedness" so people cant roam the streets all stoned and high. Make laws that say you can do it but only in your own home. With a decrease in the dealers and other scum on the streets crime would drop significantly.

Now about guns. Conservatives and southerners take the second amendment way to seriously. The second amendment was designed because the white people were parinoid about native americans attacking and their slaves revolting. The fact of the matter is white man is still afaid of the black man, but not as much against the native americans since we've either killed them or shoved them is reservations in the hell holes of America (and to all the Native Americans out there I am white, and im sorry for what the white man has done to you). Now with times changing you would think so would the second amendment. But no. Frankly there is no reason for anyone to own any assualt wepon. All those things do is kill. Now about rilfles and handguns, I feel there is no need for them either. All rifles should be banned, because no one need to go hunting anyways and all the meat we eat is born and raised on the farm, and is killed humainly. Hand guns also serve no perpose but to kill. Now if the ever illigalize guns then I belive police should keep all firearms for a certaint amout of years then give them up when gun crimes is decreasing. Again conservatives and southerners must reliaze no one is going to shot you unless you deserve it, and no one deserves to be killed anything.

 

[purplehaze]

because no one need to go hunting anyways and all the meat we eat is born and raised on the farm

I am not a hunter, however why does it matter that it isn't neciscarry? It's called recreation. It isn't neciscarry for people to go surfing or use the computer for gaming, however some people enjoy doing so (like hunting).

Frankly there is no reason for anyone to own any assualt wepon

I agree 100% with assult rifles

Hand guns also serve no perpose but to kill. Now if the ever illigalize guns then I belive police should keep all firearms for a certaint amout of years then give them up when gun crimes is decreasing.

I think this is just wrong. First of all, marijuana is Illegal as you know, however you still are able to get it because you want it. People don't commit violent crimes because they have access to guns. They commit crime because they want to commit crime. There will still be an underground market for guns if they became illegal, just like there is with drugs, as you yourself know first hand. So if someone wants to get a gun they will be able to.

The major effect would be ordinary citizens are less safe. Because people that follow the law would not carry a gun for protection. The people who break the law will continue to do so, and carry their gun to rob/kill. Now the people with guns who would break the law either way know that there is no chance when they rob someone that person will be carrying a gun. How is this a more safe environment?

Clearly if all guns were removed entirely from the planet (not possible) there would be no gun crime. However this is not possible. The fact is people who want them to break the law will be able to get them no matter what the law is. Furthermore, if you removed guns from this planet, do you think people would stop killing? Was there less crime in the Roman and medieval times due to the absence of guns?

 

[Liberal Pot Smoker]

I do agree with you on the hand gun issue. No you can stop killing. People will kill. But if you make hand guns less availible killing will go down. Let me use a simple example. Cigarettes used to be legal for everyone. Then when they made the law saying you have to be 18 to buy cigarette less kids started because they were less availible. Plus if you ban guns they would be hard to get. Someone who wants to kill someone would have to get a gun and that would take time. Maybe thats just enough time for someone to take a second thought about killing some one. And about the romans, I take a latin lauguage class, and there was terrible crime there, but also about 75% of the roman population was below the poverty line, when the rest of the people were the richest the world has ever seen. So there was a different sort of climate there.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Why do you say politicans would want to spend their budgets on police salary opposed to community development and other things they want to get done?

The purpose of power is power.

Not a single one of those hacks ran for office to do good. Each and every one of them ran to stroke their ego and gain influence.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Re: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

and nowhere can I find a right that defends the use recreational drugs.

And nowhere can you find a prohibition against them. And that's the key.

 

[DHard3006]

Re: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now about guns. Conservatives and southerners take the second amendment way to seriously. The second amendment was designed because the white people were parinoid about native americans attacking and their slaves revolting.

This line of crap is such a lie. If I recall while reading some history on North American Indian tribes that the tribes like the Europeans moved into their areas they claim the Europeans took. You know they did this by attacking and massacring the tribes there before them. The members of the tribes that the invading Indians do not kill were forced into slavery. You know the very same thing the Indians claim the Europeans did to them. And if I recall the various North American Indian tribes waged war on each other.

but not as much against the native americans since we've either killed them or shoved them is reservations in the hell holes of America

Gee all the Indians did when they invaded another tribes area was massacre the males and enslave the females. I guess you feel this was better then placing them on reservations.

Frankly there is no reason for anyone to own any assualt wepon.

Well gun hater since you have that Moore mental problem with the right to bear arms. Ask them there Indians if the muskets were assault weapons when used against what the Indians had.
Interesting how gun haters attempt to make it a gun issue when the gun haters are attacking the right to bear arms.

But if you make hand guns less availible killing will go down.

Didn’t that Bennett guy use this logic with Blacks to get crime to go down? I am not really sure if crime would drop. Guns are used 2.5 million times a year to save lives. This is not counting police and military use.

And nowhere can you find a prohibition against them. And that's the key.

You may wish to look into some law books. I believe they use a law passed around 1912 to outlaw drugs.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Ok, first of all let me start out with the fact that marijuana isnt a drug.

Gee, you promise to start with a fact, then you go ahead and claim marijuana isn't a drug. And you said you smoked pot. See how it's affected you?

Now then, the War on Drugs is as stupid as the War on Terrorism.

Not for this thread, of course, but the WoT makes sense. Terrorists are people trying to harm us against our will.

The WoD is silly, since it's supposed to be about stopping free people from harming themselves.

I live in the suburbs and the easiest thing to buy in my neighborhood is not beer, cigarettes, or even food. Its marijuana, my personal drug of choice. So the War on Drugs must have just passed over my town. Your not going to stop the drugs and its a waste of resources if you do. I think of it this way, the government should legalize all drugs. Make regualtions and such, comparred to alchohol. You mush be 21 years old to buy drugs, and you also must have a licence to sell them. If this happens then places that sell alchohol could also sell drugs. This would take many dealers off the streets because they wouldn't be able to compete with local stores. Then they can also make laws about "public stonedness" so people cant roam the streets all stoned and high. Make laws that say you can do it but only in your own home. With a decrease in the dealers and other scum on the streets crime would drop significantly.

Not bad. Your argument would be stronger if you dropped the obvious fallacy about marijuana, though.

Now about guns. Conservatives and southerners take the second amendment way to seriously. The second amendment was designed because the white people were parinoid about native americans attacking and their slaves revolting. The fact of the matter is white man is still afaid of the black man, but not as much against the native americans since we've either killed them or shoved them is reservations in the hell holes of America (and to all the Native Americans out there I am white, and im sorry for what the white man has done to you).

Hmmm...perhaps a little too much of your favorite plant? The Second Amend was written to provide the people with the means for getting rid of busy-body politicians. It's in the Federalist Papers.

Now with times changing you would think so would the second amendment. But no. Frankly there is no reason for anyone to own any assualt wepon. All those things do is kill. Now about rilfles and handguns, I feel there is no need for them either. All rifles should be banned, because no one need to go hunting anyways and all the meat we eat is born and raised on the farm, and is killed humainly. Hand guns also serve no perpose but to kill. Now if the ever illigalize guns then I belive police should keep all firearms for a certaint amout of years then give them up when gun crimes is decreasing. Again conservatives and southerners must reliaze no one is going to shot you unless you deserve it, and no one deserves to be killed anything.

Guns never kill. No one gun has ever jumped up and shot someone of it's own free will. Guns are tools to serve certain purposes. If I'd been a Korean shopkeeper in LA in 1992 I'd much rather have had a shotgun than a carving knife.

Do you think the Jews in Germany in would have had so many problems if they'd all been armed?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Re: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You may wish to look into some law books. I believe they use a law passed around 1912 to outlaw drugs.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1910/harrisonact.htm

Harrison Drug Act, 1914
Chap 1. - An Act To provide for the registration of, with collectors of internal revenue, and to impose a special tax on all persons who produce, import, manufacture, compound, deal in, dispense, sell, distribute, or give away opium or coca leaves, their salts, derivatives, or preparations, and for other purposes.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cu8.html

On its face, moreover, the Harrison bill did not appear to be a prohibition law at all. Its official title was "An Act to provide for the registration of, with collectors of internal revenue, and to impose a special tax upon all persons who produce, import, manufacture, compound, deal in, dispense, sell, distribute, or give away opium or coca leaves, their salts, derivatives, or preparations, and for other purposes ." 4 The law specifically provided that manufacturers, importers, pharmacists, and physicians prescribing narcotics should be licensed to do so, at a moderate fee. The patent-medicine manufacturers were exempted even from the licensing and tax provisions, provided that they limited themselves to "preparations and remedies which do not contain more than two grains of opium, or more than one-fourth of a grain of morphine, or more than one-eighth of a grain of heroin . in one avoirdupois ounce." 5 Far from appearing to be a prohibition law, the Harrison Narcotic Act on its face was merely a law for the orderly marketing of opium, morphine, heroin, end other drugs-in small quantities over the counter, and in larger Quantities on a physician's prescription. Indeed, the right of a physician to prescribe was spelled out in apparently unambiguous terms: "Nothing contained in this section shall apply . . . to the dispensing or distribution of any of the aforesaid drugs to a patient by a physician, dentist, or veterinary surgeon registered under this Act in the course of his professional practice only." 6 Registered physicians were required only to keep records of drugs dispensed or prescribed. it is unlikely that a single legislator realized in 1914 that the law Congress was passing would later be decreed a prohibition law.

The provision protecting physicians, however, contained a joker hidden in the phrase, "in the course of his professional practice only ." 7 After passage of the law, this clause was interpreted by law-enforcement officers to mean that a doctor could not prescribe opiates to an addict to maintain his addiction. Since addiction was not a disease, the argument went, an addict was not a patient, and opiates dispensed to or prescribed for him by a physician were therefore not being supplied "in the course of his professional practice." Thus a law apparently intended to ensure the orderly marketing of narcotics was converted into a law prohibiting the supplying of narcotics to addicts, even on a physician's prescription.

later...

In 1953, Rufus King, Esq., chairman of the American Bar Association's committee on narcotics, * summed up his personal views in the Yale Law Journal:

The true addict, by universal1y accepted definitions, is totally enslaved to his habit. He will do anything to fend off the illness, marked by physical and emotional agony, that results from abstinence. So long as society will not traffic with him on any terms, he must remain the abject servitor of his vicious nemesis, the peddler. The addict will commit crimes-mostly petty offenses like shoplifting and prostitution-to get the price the peddler asks. He will peddle dope and make new addicts if those are his master's terms. Drugs are a commodity of trifling intrinsic value. All the billions our society has spent enforcing criminal measures against the addict have had the sole practical result of protecting the peddler's market, artificially inflating his prices, and keeping his profits fantastically high. No other nation hounds its addicts as we do, and no other nation faces anything remotely resembling our problem. 17

Needless to say, the prohibition on alcohol was repealed because prohibition is a stupid idea and it irked too many people. The opponents of the prohibition on other drugs didn't have as big a political base.

The USSC supposedly threw out Chapter 2 of the Harrison Act, not that it means anything. The USSC is the gang the opened the door on gun-banning, too. You're not one of those people that think the USSC's word on what the Constitution says is infallible, are you?

 

[Binary_Digit]

Ok, first of all let me start out with the fact that marijuana isnt a drug.

I smoke too, but let's be honest. A drug is any substance other than food intended to change the function of the body. Since marijuana releases endorphins in the brain, it changes the function of the body and is therefore a drug.

The second amendment was designed because the white people were parinoid about native americans attacking and their slaves revolting.

Yep, but that wasn't the only reason. It was also to allow for state militia, and for citizens to defend themselves against militia from other states. "The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790's than it is today. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state militias, under the command of local officers. Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states...Many state constitutions had a right to bear arms for the purposes of the maintenance of the militia. Many had laws that required men of age to own a gun and supplies, including powder and bullets."

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

Now with times changing you would think so would the second amendment. But no. Frankly there is no reason for anyone to own any assualt wepon. All those things do is kill. Now about rilfles and handguns, I feel there is no need for them either. All rifles should be banned, because no one need to go hunting anyways and all the meat we eat is born and raised on the farm, and is killed humainly. Hand guns also serve no perpose but to kill. Now if the ever illigalize guns then I belive police should keep all firearms for a certaint amout of years then give them up when gun crimes is decreasing. Again conservatives and southerners must reliaze no one is going to shot you unless you deserve it, and no one deserves to be killed anything.

The government takes away your right to smoke weed, and yet you still trust them to protect your liberties when they have the only guns in the country? That would be begging for the Bush family to turn this country into a monarchy within a decade.

I think all guns including assault rifles should be allowed, but the police and military should never be out-gunned. If someone wants to kill that many people they can make a Timothy McVeigh bomb for a fraction of the price of an AR-15. But I do realize that a line has to be drawn. We probably shouldn't have ordinary citizens walking around with nuclear weapons, for example. The reward of freedom isn't worth the risk in that case.

If you take away all the weapons, you don't take away the means or the motive to kill. Humans will just resort to sticks and stones again. Better education on how to resolve disagreements without shooting each other would help tremendously. That, and how to raise kids that don't grow up to be killers. :doh

 

[PhotonicLaceration]

Now about guns. Conservatives and southerners take the second amendment way to seriously. The second amendment was designed because the white people were parinoid about native americans attacking and their slaves revolting. The fact of the matter is white man is still afaid of the black man, but not as much against the native americans since we've either killed them or shoved them is reservations in the hell holes of America (and to all the Native Americans out there I am white, and im sorry for what the white man has done to you)

You have that racist part exactly backwards.


The Native Americans were certainly a consideration then, and they had good reason to be. Native Americans often violently attacked settlers. Note that I'm not saying that it was right for us to take their land. The second ammendment was mainly established however to form a protection against foreign and domestic issues{which may include natives}, and protection against the government. The Preamble of the constitution, and the Declaration of independence respectively support those points. And the Japanese in WWII were quoted as saying something like, "there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass" if they attacked the U.S. While we have a strong military today, that may not always be the case... Especially in this rapidly changing world. Additionally, Providing for the Common Defense has a lot to do with the defense of the common person against non-foreign attacks I think as well.

As far as African Americans, and really the heart of racism, one should look up the history of gun-control. (Or weapon-control if you look at the dark-ages) The first gun control imposed in the United States was to prevent the recently freed slaves from being able to posess arms. Look up the history behind the word and idea of a Saturday Night Special (which is a commonly used term by anti-gun activists) and look for the original terminology. You might be surprised, but the name itself even implies racism if you look up it's true roots. Originally, the laws themselves reguarding similar issues (which sprung from the south) even included vulgar racist terms in the legislation. Later, when they weren't allowed to do that, they figured since minorities were poor, the best way to keep them unarmed was to make bans on weaponry cheap enough for them to afford. It really did make it easier for them to lynch people. Also, in Nazi Germany, and with Stalin and the Burguonese, both of them knowingly disarmed the populace for the reason that they shouldn't be able to revolt.

It wasn't until more modern years that people have even come up with the idea (or at least argued it on the basis) of it being a deterrant to crime.

This next part is just an opinion, but it seems to me that those two reasons (keep the minorities and impoverished down, and to protect the government from revolt) are still some of the real reasons that the big-time statist anti-gun politicans are for gun control. Not to say that there aren't people who are actually convinced that gun-control actually reduces crime.