jps wrote:

You expound and defend the same positions that other "conservatives"
spout. Don't bother hiding behind your proposed "devil's advocate"
status, since everyone knows it's bull****.

When one is so irrational as to assign the country's ills to guns, it
becomes apparent that the real agenda is not the one stated: reducing
crime by banning gun ownership by the citizens.

Guns have suddenly become a major issue for you, Mr. JPS. We've heard
precious little from you since you incorrectly called the presidential
election some years ago. What's changed?

Now that you've finally got your candidate elected, we're to believe
that you've become worried about gun ownership, that you feel your
security is threatened by those who own guns -- not just by criminals
who own and use them them to commit crimes -- but also by responsible
gun owners: you want to disarm them also. To make your argument seem
reasonable, you single out criminal acts involving guns, and then
extrapolate to all gun owners, coyly mentioning 'righties, christians,
and conservatives'. This is revealing since few of the crimes committed
with guns are committed by those who would describe themselves as
'righties, christians, or conservatives'. Could you cite cases? of
course -- those are the very cases you delight to cite in order to
associate criminal acts with 'righties, christians, and conservatives'.
Those are your true target.

Rather, the agenda is control - controlling people and controlling the
population. If the citizens of a country are allowed to own guns, you
may never be able to control them completely. Remember, those citizens
who are 'righties, christians, and conservatives' who own guns: you
believe they are a threat to you also, for you want gun ownership banned
to all, not just those who have committed criminal acts.

Where the agenda under the new leader is the social engineering of the
population, and where a portion of that population (designated as
'righties, christians, and conservatives') are resistive to such social
engineering, and own guns, then the fear becomes that there could
possibly be, at some future time, an armed resistance to tyrannical
leadership. Therefore they must be disarmed. (Why, just listen to the
rising chorus of righty, christian, conservative bloggers, talk shows,
etc., to resist the social engineering and tyranny!)

What better way to remove the perceived threat than by removing all guns
from the citizens under the guise of reducing crime? Do it now while the
true agenda remains hidden. Brilliant!

I don't believe your gun banning proposal is for the purpose of reducing
criminal acts involving guns. It's a façade. You've revealed your true
motive by involving 'righties, christians, and conservatives' who have
never committed crimes, much less a crime with a gun.

Johnson