i don't understand the anti's hoopla


PDA






dakotasin
June 29, 2005, 09:41 PM
went to my 5-year-old daughter's softball game tonight. around 75 people in attendance not including coaches and players. one of the spectators for the other team was open carrying a glock, and there were a couple others in attendance that had ccw's that were easy to spot (ie little or no effort taken to conceal), or the wind blew their cover-garment open and flashed their piece (was quite windy out at ~45 mph).

nobody got a second glance, cops didn't come and cuff-n-stuff, nobody got screamed at... nothing of the sort. just a few folks out enjoying the evening watching the kids play. the spectators were probably a 30-70 mix of men-women, and i'd guess that 80% of the vehicles were minivans, 20% pickups/suv's...

why can't the anti's just leave us be? everything went as expected, guns on display and everything...

If you enjoyed reading about "i don't understand the anti's hoopla" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Alex45ACP
June 29, 2005, 09:56 PM
But, but... Dianne Feinstein and Sarah Brady said every argument would become a murder and the streets would run with blood! :rolleyes: :D

Rupestris
June 29, 2005, 09:58 PM
I've seen people open-carry and I've spotted folks CCW'n'. Never felt uneasy. In fact, when in public, I'm glad they're there.

AK-74me
June 29, 2005, 10:09 PM
Must be nice, not chance of seeing that seen here in MD.

dasmi
June 29, 2005, 10:12 PM
I mentioned this in a recent thread.
During my recent trip to Arizona, I open carried. No one noticed. No one cared. No one gave me a second look. The two police officers I walked past at a gas station smiled and nodded, I did the same. No one died. Blood did not flow from the nearest child, filling up the gutters. Women did not scream. Men did not gnash their teeth.

Rob1035
June 29, 2005, 10:20 PM
I simply can't imagine open carry in town (charlotte, decent city, lots of libs though), people are simply too 'urban' not to freak out.

In the smaller towns though, I could see it. Especially in the country...

Zundfolge
June 29, 2005, 10:20 PM
why can't the anti's just leave us be?

Because if they let us be we might do other horrible things that antis don't like. Like think for ourselves ... teach our children to think for themselves ... embrace individuality ... embrace the free market ... live our lives without their "assistance" and "guidance".


Its not about guns ... its about control.

Joe Meyer
June 29, 2005, 10:20 PM
[QUOTE]I mentioned this in a recent thread.
During my recent trip to Arizona, I open carried. No one noticed. No one cared. No one gave me a second look. The two police officers I walked past at a gas station smiled and nodded, I did the same. No one died. Blood did not flow from the nearest child, filling up the gutters. Women did not scream. Men did not gnash their teeth.

Great post!

Dmack_901
June 29, 2005, 10:34 PM
You see, the anti's don't understand their arguement either. They've been brought up one way, and they'll defend that idea till their death. Most people just won't look into both sides with an open mind. They'll pick one side, and defend it, attacking the other.

And I catch myself doing the same thing all the time. I do my best to take time to figure out what exactly my morals are, and what my position on a topic is, but everyone blindly follows an arguement once in a while.

edit: We'll they think they understand it.

During my recent trip to Arizona, I open carried. No one noticed. No one cared. No one gave me a second look. The two police officers I walked past at a gas station smiled and nodded, I did the same. No one died. Blood did not flow from the nearest child, filling up the gutters. Women did not scream. Men did not gnash their teeth.We all know that they don't fear you. They fear that one in a million who shouldn't have a gun. They fear the criminals, felons, mentally unstable, who havn't yet been caught, and arn't known to be that way. There many flaws with that thinking, but I'm not going to go into depth since most everyone here understands that.

dasmi
June 29, 2005, 10:39 PM
I simply can't imagine open carry in town
Did it Phoenix, Flagstaff, Yuma, and Prescott, no trouble.

Its not about guns ... its about control.
Ding ding ding. You got it.

Dmack_901
June 29, 2005, 10:52 PM
It may be about control to the guys in Washington, but it's not about control to the small man. To him it's simply insecure fear. To them being near a person with a gun is like standing on the side of an interstate. They see the cars zip by at 80mph, and they start thinking about all the bad things that could happen. Sure, it's safe, but they just don't trust anyone.

Edit: Hum.. Now that I think about it, it is about control. Not gaining it, but losing it. They don't want anyone to have control of their lives. And that's also apparent in gay's movement to get married, opposition to government monitoring of people, opposition to genetic engeneering, and even the push for "organic" foods.

I see.

dasmi
June 29, 2005, 10:54 PM
It may be about control to the guys in Washington, but it's not about control to the small man
Yep. Those types are the ones who are already controlled.

Hook686
June 29, 2005, 11:18 PM
Today, 08:41 PM #1
dakotasin Senior Member

wrote,

" i don't understand the anti's hoopla

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...

why can't the anti's just leave us be? everything went as expected, guns on display and everything...




I really do not know ... perhaps the fear of the anti is as great, or greater, than the fear of those that carry, or sleep with a gun. Fear is an amazing emotion.

Hook686

Standing Wolf
June 29, 2005, 11:20 PM
why can't the anti's just leave us be?

The leftist extremists know they'll never be able to shove socialism down America's throat as long as there are armed law-abiding citizens who are ready, willing, and able to think for ourselves.

Hook686
June 30, 2005, 03:00 AM
Yesterday, 10:20 PM #14
Standing Wolf
Senior Member

wrote.

why can't the anti's just leave us be?

...

law-abiding citizens ... and able to think for ourselves.




You realize that these are two mutually exclusive terms.

Happy Shooting

Hook686

Khaotic
June 30, 2005, 03:33 AM
You know, I never liked Texas, for the period that I lived there - but the area we were living in was extremely laid-back about open carry.

Me and my ex would go grocery shopping armed to the teeth (this included swords, we're a bit strange...) and no one even blinked.

+1 Texas.

-K

pokey074
June 30, 2005, 06:30 AM
Ain't SD great?

Norton
June 30, 2005, 07:04 AM
Must be nice, not chance of seeing that seen here in MD.

Unless, of course, you are politically connected, wealthy or a retired police officer.

Case in point: Went to look at a boat with two others the other day and met the fellow at his dock to take it out for a spin. So, here's us, three pretty big guys, with this one slight gentleman getting ready to take $30k worth of boat out on to the river.

Since I'm not a boat guy, I just sat back and enjoyed the ride and started talking to the gentleman. I had noticed the fanny pack, but then realized that it was unzipped (unusual to leave anything unsecured on a boat ride) and was in fact a holster and he was packing (and I honestly don't blame him).

After chatting, it turns out he was a retired police officer......

mete
June 30, 2005, 07:09 AM
Some learn. My friend told me about a woman who was just beaten and robbed .The middle of the day at a shopping center.She had been one of those who couldn't understand why anyone would want a gun and highly disapproved of them. Now she wants a gun and has been asking questions constantly about them !!

CatsDieNow
June 30, 2005, 08:22 AM
You know, I never liked Texas, for the period that I lived there - but the area we were living in was extremely laid-back about open carry. Khaotic,

Open carry of handguns is not legal here (unless you are hunting). Perhaps you were in Arizona. :confused:

mhdishere
June 30, 2005, 09:29 AM
Remember that Hoplophobia is just that, a phobia, an irrational fear. If you've ever known anyone with a phobia you know what I mean. My old GF was phobic about bugs, especially roaches. I don't mean "oh gross!", I mean freeze up, can't move, can't talk, can't do anything but hyperventilate with a look of total panic on her face. We were in a store once that had apparently recently been sprayed and there were some dead roaches around, I practically had to carry her out. That's how anti's view guns. It's not practical (notice few people are phobic about tigers, there's good reason to be afraid of them), it's totally irrational.

peacefuljeffrey
June 30, 2005, 09:41 AM
Dmack,

It may be about control to the guys in Washington, but it's not about control to the small man. To him it's simply insecure fear. To them being near a person with a gun is like standing on the side of an interstate. They see the cars zip by at 80mph, and they start thinking about all the bad things that could happen. Sure, it's safe, but they just don't trust anyone.

Edit: Hum.. Now that I think about it, it is about control. Not gaining it, but losing it. They don't want anyone to have control of their lives. And that's also apparent in gay's movement to get married, opposition to government monitoring of people, opposition to genetic engeneering, and even the push for "organic" foods.

Actually, anti-gunners are all about ceding control: they think that the government does a much better job of running our lives than we could ever do. They think that the police do a much better job of protecting our lives than we could ever do.

I think you were right the first time: it's the fact that they don't trust the common man. It's not that they don't want others to have control over their lives, at all. They welcome others coming in to control their lives, because they are not courageous enough to do it for themselves. The effort of thinking and acting for oneself is too much for them. Far easier to have choices made and defenses taken on your behalf by someone else. Then these anti-gunners despise us for making them feel inadequate (which they truly are) by taking responsibility for ourselves. They can't have that -- it makes them feel threatened, makes them feel bad about who they are. So they try to take away our ability to show them up.

It's kind of like if a guy couldn't get himself laid, and had to go out and try to blow any other guy's chances of getting laid, by badmouthing him to the girls or something. The old, "If I can't have it, NO one can have it!" It's truly pathetic. :rolleyes:


-Jeffrey

Tim3256
June 30, 2005, 10:17 AM
The anti's that I know have (mostly) told me that they're OK with me C'ingCW, but that's because they know me. It's the "other guy" that worries them. I have been told by one particularly clear-thinking (IMO) anti that he'd be OK with CCW and open carry by all, assuming (by some miracle) that all could be trusted to act responsibly. Ironically, if that were the case no one would need any protection (against people) guns at all. This seems a pretty rational point of view, actually. I think therein lies the real division here: the anti's think their needs (perception of safety) are more important than the pro's needs (taking protection into our own hands). I just happen to disagree with him in that I believe my ability/responsibility to protect myself and my family should outweigh the fact that he doesn't feel safe with guns in the hands of ordinary folks.

The sad thing is, and be honest, we've all seen (or know) licensed/legal/whatever shooters that should ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY NOT have guns. Just goes to show that the line gets kinda blurry when you REALLY look.

My .02

Khaotic
June 30, 2005, 02:48 PM
Open carry of handguns is not legal here (unless you are hunting). Perhaps you were in Arizona.

That is decidedly odd, because quite a few folk did so and no one seemed to care very much, maybe it's a Texas thing ?... admittedly it was a bit of a rough neighborhood, but still, you'd think someone woulda mentioned it at least.... oy! :eek:

On a related note, several ranking members of anti-gun agendas here in MI have in the past few months been busted for, of all things, illegal firearms possession, carrying without CCW, and in one case (I think, but don't quote me) packing one with the serial numbers filed off.

Gee, they don't wanna ban guns, they want to ban everyone ELSE from having one - that's kinda scary, when you think about it.

-K

Preacherman
June 30, 2005, 02:52 PM
Dakotasin, good thread and topic - but you left out the important bit that frightens the anti-gunners: the bit when the parents of the fielders opened fire on the ball heading for the boundary, that had just been hit by the batter...

:D

MikeIsaj
June 30, 2005, 03:47 PM
Good post, good experience. I can't imagine it happening that way in my area. Last month, I had the exact opposite experience while running security at our parish carnival. The pastor came to me with a concern that some parents had that I was carrying a gun! It only took them fifteen years to notice. Apparently it printed while I was sitting down for a break.

dakotasin
June 30, 2005, 04:14 PM
i ask this question partly rhetorically - in demonstration that a few armed folks in a park watching kids play doesn't guarantee a war, and partly because i simply don't understand their view. kind of like if you don't like something, then don't eat/buy/play/smell/whatever it, but don't tell me i shouldn't/can't do something just because you don't like it...

i don't know, maybe i am too laissez faire or something, but it just seems to me that that is the way things should be.

zundfolge was the first to respond w/ the control thing, and after reading several of the other answers, i think that may very well be correct - so that sheds some understanding. but, giving up control certainly leads to the confiscation of many of the freedoms and liberties we, as a nation, hold so dear... therefore, i'm not sure that control is the absolute answer.

in my view, and i do not know - which is why i asked, dmack seems to have nailed it perfectly. are we to believe then that all these anti's are completely, and totally irrational to their very core?? but mhdishere provides some insight that really backs up dmack's thoughts...

surely the majority of anti-gunners know that there are plenty of ccw's at events they attend? that these events don't get shot up, inspite the presence of guns? not long ago i carried my sig 229 to accompany my family to chuck e. cheese's. i am sure i was not the only one carrying - maybe i was - but still, nothing happened...

i gotta run to the store. seems i need some more components for reloading. and, i'll be carrying my s&w...

i just can't grasp the anti's angle, and it frustrates me.

pokey- yeah, i wish i had moved here years ago. i thought i knew freedom when i lived in los angeles and san diego. but, after i moved here, i understood freedom. been here 10 years now, and don't miss socal even a tiny bit - its more, much, much more than just gun laws. gun laws are just the start.

dasmi
June 30, 2005, 04:17 PM
are we to believe then that all these anti's are completely, and totally irrational
Many of them are exactly that.

Dave R
June 30, 2005, 05:01 PM
nobody got a second glance, cops didn't come and cuff-n-stuff, nobody got screamed at... nothing of the sort. Dude, you're in South Dakota.

Try it in Boston, MA. Its a whole nother country.

cookekdjr
June 30, 2005, 05:15 PM
Why are the anti's this way?

1. There are many cold hard facts that show the mere presence of a gun in a home dramatically increase the chances that someone will die from an accidental gun discharge, and the chances of that occuring are much higher than those of your being victimized by guns.
2. Industrialized countries with stricter gun controls have dramatically lower violent crime rates.
3. Most people nowadays are not raised around guns. They know nothing about responsible gun ownership. Zero.

Realize I love guns, I own guns, and that I'm always about 2 steps from the doghouse with my wife because she was not raised around them like I was so she is afraid of them. I have them anyway.
But we as gunowners need to understand the gun-control crowd. Some act out of fear and ignorance. But some have perfectly valid, reasonable opinions on restricting gun ownership. I happen to disagree with them on whether we should implement these laws- I prefer freedom and its secure preservation through individual gun ownership, even as I recognize it contributes to higher crime and accidental deaths.
Understand the enemy, then you can more effectively battle them...or win them over to your side. ;)
-David

dasmi
June 30, 2005, 05:17 PM
1. There are many cold hard facts that show the mere presence of a gun in a home dramatically increase the chances that someone will die from an accidental gun discharge, and the chances of that occuring are much higher than those of your being victimized by guns.
2. Industrialized countries with stricter gun controls have dramatically lower violent crime rates.

Excuse me? Please link to these "facts"

Andrew Rothman
June 30, 2005, 06:27 PM
1. There are many cold hard facts that show the mere presence of a gun in a home dramatically increase the chances that someone will die from an accidental gun discharge, and the chances of that occuring are much higher than those of your being victimized by guns.

Surely you're joking!

The Kellerman study is a well-documented joke.

2. Industrialized countries with stricter gun controls have dramatically lower violent crime rates.

Um, yeah, some. These countries also have fewer violent knife crimes. Could it be that the issue is cultural and not legal?

And then there's Switzerland and Israel, nicely industrialized countries, where you can't swing a cat without hitting a legal machine gun, and where violent crime is also very low.

Billmanweh
June 30, 2005, 06:47 PM
I'm starting to be of the opinion that it's reasonable for there to be states where gun laws are pretty liberal (Arizona, South Dakota, etc) if that's how the majority of the citizens of that state want them to be. And the opposite is true of places like California, New Jersey, etc.

I mean, don't Schummer and Kennedy and Kerry and Clinton all come up for re-election? They must be representing their constituents. I'm assuming that includes their views on gun legislation.

If you want to be left alone with your gun rights, who are you to tell people who are anti-gun that they should change the laws in their states (or not vote their conscience on federal gun laws)?

Zundfolge
June 30, 2005, 06:56 PM
If you want to be left alone with your gun rights, who are you to tell people who are anti-gun that they should change the laws in their states (or not vote their conscience on federal gun laws)?

Thats the same argument many southern states had against the abolitionists.


The reason why as gun rights supporters we demand NATIONAL freedom is that a basic human right is not something that is determined by a majority vote.

Again I return to slavery ... it was wrong. Plain and simple it was wrong. Even if the majority of people in one state believed it was okay it is still wrong.



Post modernism has left too many of us able to stand up and declare "this is right, that is wrong".

Billmanweh
June 30, 2005, 07:03 PM
The reason why as gun rights supporters we demand NATIONAL freedom is that a basic human right is not something that is determined by a majority vote.

Again I return to slavery ... it was wrong. Plain and simple it was wrong. Even if the majority of people in one state believed it was okay it is still wrong.



That's an interesting analogy. You may think it's a basic human right, but the courts have decided against you. If citizens of California who want to buy a newly manufactured machine gun feel like their basic human rights are being infringed, they have a recourse. Not exactly working out for them though.

Which leads me back to my point. Besides the fact that you *feel* it's a basic human right, what's wrong with leaving it to be a state-by-state issue?

dasmi
June 30, 2005, 07:12 PM
You may think it's a basic human right, but the courts have decided against you
Just because the court thinks it isn't a basic human right, does make it so.

alan
June 30, 2005, 07:12 PM
dakotasin:

I don't want to sound like a "Know it all", but I believe that you are missing an essential point, at least respecting the movers and shakers of the anti gun lobby.

I really don't believe that they care all that much about guns, whatever kind of guns one might mention. Rather, I believe that it's all a question of POWER to them, THEIR POWER OVER THE LOWER CLASSES, WHO OBVIOUSLY CANNOT BE TRUSTED. It is also ALL FOR YOLUR OWN GOOD.

I believe that be it guns, or abortion or prayer in the schools, that whatever the issue de jour turns out to be is simply a "hook" on which the real know it alls can hang their cloaks.

I believe that if and when this is recognized by The Huddled Masses, that a great step forward in the direction of combatting these know it alls will have been taken, for these know it alls must be kept separate from the power that they so obviously crave.

Billmanweh
June 30, 2005, 07:16 PM
Just because the court thinks it isn't a basic human right, does make it so.

You're entitled to your opinion that it's a basic human right, just like an anti is entitled to theirs. But the court controls whether or not you can go out and buy an AR-15.

Keyster
June 30, 2005, 07:17 PM
The bottom line is, the people with the guns have the power.
The founding fathers felt the power should rest with the people.
If the goverment should become corrupt the people would have the tools for a recall of last resort.
Liberals feel that the goverment should have all the power.
So, no guns for you. :neener:



When talking to a liberal do not expect them to make any sense.
They have one simple rule.
Do anything, say anything, to advance the agenda.

K.

dasmi
June 30, 2005, 07:21 PM
I don't think the court has the right to tell me what I can and cannot purchase, in the way of firearms. Just because some people in California don't like, doesn't mean I should be prohibited from owning what I want. If you don't like it, don't buy it, and leave the rest of us alone.

Billmanweh
June 30, 2005, 07:23 PM
I don't think the court has the right to tell me what I can and cannot purchase, in the way of firearms. Just because some people in California don't like, doesn't mean I should be prohibited from owning what I want. If you don't like it, don't buy it, and leave the rest of us alone.

You may not *think* that the court has a right to tell you, but that thought and $4 will buy you a cup of coffee.

dasmi
June 30, 2005, 07:25 PM
True. But I don't respect any decision by the court that is clearly un-constitutional.

Billmanweh
June 30, 2005, 07:27 PM
True. But I don't respect any decision by the court that is clearly un-constitutional.

Again, that's in your opinion. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has the final say. And whether you respect it or not, it's the law. Although I guess you could go down to your local gun store and explain the disrespect thing and your other thoughts and see how far that gets you.

dasmi
June 30, 2005, 07:28 PM
My point is, the SCOTUS can be wrong. It might be the law, but it can still be wrong.

Billmanweh
June 30, 2005, 07:33 PM
My point is, the SCOTUS can be wrong. It might be the law, but it can still be wrong.

I see your point, I didn't mean to be rude.

My point is that whether you or I *think* it's right or wrong, it's the law. States are given quite a bit of leeway in making their own gun laws. My point is that I'm not sure that's a bad idea. Other than a few individuals disagreeing, it's representing that state's citizens.

MountainPeak
June 30, 2005, 07:46 PM
I open carry frequently. Mostly, because I can. If you don't like it. Tell someone that cares. I don't come across as someone you would pop off to about the dangers of firearms. I do have the occasional, "is that a Wilson"? :) In fact it happened last weekend at a local cafe.

dakotasin
July 1, 2005, 12:02 AM
Dude, you're in South Dakota.

Try it in Boston, MA. Its a whole nother country.


yeah, that's kind of the point i was making.

alan- in my quest for knowledge on these subjects, you don't come across to me as a 'know-it-all', nor will you offend me... i'm of the opinion that to beat the enemy, i need to understand the enemy. and clearly, i don't understand them. i'm firmly in the camp of 'if you don't like it, don't do it, and leave others the hell alone' camp... and i just don't get it, i guess.

If you enjoyed reading about "i don't understand the anti's hoopla" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!