Paul Hughes wrote:
> Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant to say that the legal system generally is
> set up to benefit the rich and *their* corporate interests. Eliminating
> disables a population that is becoming increasingly less tolerant of
> *their* system. A disarmed society is an obedient society. A society
> only the rich can carry, is a society benefiting the rich. I think that
> pretty obvious don't you?
IMO, one of the most disturbing and least-recognized truths about American politics is the fact that *no one* is in charge. Not Congress, not the President, not the Right or the Left, not the Rich or the Poor, not Unions or Evil Corporations. The system has fragmented to the point where no group can have the kind of influence you look for.
Instead, we have politicians who stand for nothing, selling their votes to whichever interest group can shout the loudest today. We have government agencies accountable (for all practical purposes) to no one, whose only real purpose is their own empire-building schemes. Looking for a center of power on this landscape is a mistake, because there isn't one.
The anti-gun crusade's success is a natural result of the fact that its supporters have more votes than the NRA. Academic liberals and journalists tend to be afraid of guns, afraid of trusting individuals with anything, and in favor of government control over everything. Government agencies are always in favor of obtaining a complete monopoly on force, and politicians think they can get votes by promising to 'do something' every time someone goes postal with an automatic weapon.
> Tell me Michael, why haven't the gun manufacturers gotten together to
> their own boycott organization? I mean common, why haven't Ruger
> and Smith & Wesson and the other gun manufacturers put aside their
> instincts long enough to realize that if they cooperate they can survive
> industry rather than watch themselves be run out of business through
> increasing regulation? If Cleveland decides they'll no longer allow guns
> their city, then the gun manufacturers can retaliate by refusing to sell
> guns to their law enforcement as well. Such retaliation would quickly
> the table back in their favor. If it *is* in their corporate interest,
> haven't they done this Michael? Such a tactic is so obvious, why have they
> ignored it? Is continuing their business as usual into oblivion in
> their corporate interest?
Can you imagine what a public relations disaster this would be? "Evil gun runners conspire to disarm our hard working police - details at 6". Remember - most journalists are in favor of gun control. A move like this would simply give the industry's opponents an easy way to make them look like villains, which in turn would seriously weaken their position.
It all comes down to a popularity contest in the end. If the gun manufacturers let themselves look like the bad guys, we'll end up with a system where they are legally required to sell to the government and no one else. If they can make themselves look good, they might be able to beat off the attack - but that means looking good to Joe Six-pack, not to you and me.
IMO, they will probably hold out in the short run. In the long run, however, the only way to stop the steady erosion of our right to bear arms is to convince the general population that they should support us. We can only hope that the effects of decades of government propaganda can be reversed before it is too late.
Billy Brown, MCSE+I