What do you consider an "anti"?


PDA






jlh26oo
November 16, 2008, 07:57 AM
Say someone was into hunting, shooting sports, an N.R.A. member, and collected firearms- but didn't for instance support open carry, and didn't fundamentally oppose certain limitations or qualifications (I.E. background checks, or even banning certain types of firearms etc).

Do you put them in the same class as the most radical of antis, or worse since they are "one of us" yet a hypocrite/traitor? Or is someone who has and uses guns, believed in using them in S.D. an N.R.A. member etc definitively not an anti?

Slicing hairs/semantics, but just curious how T.H.R. defines it. Just vote then tell us what specifically defines "anti" to you (as often as we throw it around). If you want to hash out any particular issue, let's not do it here (please start a new thread if allowable).

Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "What do you consider an "anti"?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Blakenzy
November 16, 2008, 09:15 AM
If you are proactively supporting or voicing support(by voting, drafting laws or other political activities) of measures that curtail or otherwise restrict the ability of citizens to obtain and legaly use firearms of any kind according to their will then you are an antigun character.

If you disagree with ownership or use of certain firearms but keep the matter on the personal opinion level then you are not an anti, you just have "antigun" tendencies.

hso
November 16, 2008, 09:19 AM
OT for Activism, but it could make for a good GGD discussion.

Remember to stay focused on the OP question and start your own thread instead of drifting off the road.

LKB3rd
November 16, 2008, 09:31 AM
I see an anti as someone who is afraid of guns. There are various categories of anti, ranging from the neighbor who gets nervous if a gun is in her presence, to the politician who is afraid of guns because he/she is afraid that the people will finally get fed up with their lack of response to the will of the people, and sees people with guns as empowered and independent.

benEzra
November 16, 2008, 09:38 AM
Anyone who advocates for further restrictions on what mentally competent adults with clean records can lawfully own, or who advocates for further restrictions on the right to use firearms for lawful self-defense, is anti, IMO.

If they support banning "assault weapons" (e.g., the most popular centerfire rifles in America) or magazine capacity restrictions, they are anti. "Gun rights for hunters only" is not significantly different from the gun-owner hell that is the UK (and keep in mind that fewer than 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners hunts).

I am OK with background checks, and can live with requiring a shall-issue license (at the state, not Federal, level) in order to carry, though I have no problem with Vermont-style carry either. But I do not support any further restrictions on lawful ownership and use.

2nd 41
November 16, 2008, 09:48 AM
I was chatting with someone and the Gun topic came up. His reply was "There is no reason for anyone to own a gun. NONE". I'd call that anti.

Also,heard gun owners say there is no need for AK's, Uzi's etc. I don't recognize them as anti's. They are jealous or not thinking it out. I compare that to saying we do not need 600hp cars on the street.

An anti to me is someone not wanting any guns around.

Roadwild17
November 16, 2008, 10:02 AM
There is definitely a difference between the person who things we dont need ^insert specific caliber or model^ but hunting rifles and shotguns are ok & is not out there doing damage to the RKBA cause and the person who things all guns are bad and is out there doing there part to see RKBA only in the history books.


The first person in my statement may be under the impression that an AK,AR,Fal is somehow "more evil" than a remy 7600, which is totally fine because its a hunting rifle.

bdickens
November 16, 2008, 10:07 AM
I see it as a continuum because there are some people you can reach and some you can't.

Old Fuff
November 16, 2008, 10:12 AM
In my book, an "anti" is any person that supports relulations and laws that affect what I can own and/or do. I don't impose conditions on others, and I expect them to do the same.

Those gun owners that support laws that restrict others so long as they don't affect them need to wake up and understand that sooner or later the gun control folks will get around to going after whatever they have. :uhoh:

Harve Curry
November 16, 2008, 10:16 AM
Old Fuff summed it up nicer then I could.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's about FREEDOM.

22-rimfire
November 16, 2008, 10:33 AM
I agree with Old Fuff now. These people are anti-freedom and anti-individual.

I have to admit spending as much time reading as I do on the forums has broadened my perspective on firearms. I formerly felt that EBR's were a separate issue in the gun control movement. I now see the divide and conquer mentality just like the class oriented campaigning where evil business and those evil rich folks are singled out for higher taxes. It works and it gets votes.

But I don't believe that EBR's are the most popular rifles in the USA as was mentioned earlier.

The Bushmaster
November 16, 2008, 11:06 AM
An "anti" is anyone that attempts to restrict me from owning and shooting any firearm I wish...

Old Fuff
November 16, 2008, 11:20 AM
But I don't believe that EBR's are the most popular rifles in the USA as was mentioned earlier.

During late 2007/early 2008 the NSSF took a survey within the firearms industry, and discovered that the sale of "tactical firearms" was running neck-and-neck with "traditional firearms." Since that time the sale of traditional arms has gone down a bit, while the sale of tactical arms increased somewhat until after the election when they skyrocketed. Of course the total body of traditional firearms is greater then that of tactical ones, but the widespread ownership of the latter is much larger then many people realize. Certain folks in Washington may learn this the hard way come future elections..

deadin
November 16, 2008, 11:21 AM
So, if the Great God of firearm regulations came to you and said "You can have any full auto or any caliber up to crew served weapons, any handgun with as big a magazine as it can hold. No more restrictions on silencers, barrel length, etc. No carry restrictions or who can have firearms. All you have to do is agree to give up shotguns." You would tell him to forget it?:rolleyes:

Aran
November 16, 2008, 11:24 AM
Say someone was into hunting, shooting sports, an N.R.A. member, and collected firearms- but didn't for instance support open carry, and didn't fundamentally oppose certain limitations or qualifications (I.E. background checks, or even banning certain types of firearms etc).

Do you put them in the same class as the most radical of antis, or worse since they are "one of us" yet a hypocrite/traitor?

Yes.

Kevin108
November 16, 2008, 11:55 AM
I heard something that made a lot of sense yesterday. I was listening to Philip Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense League on an older episode of GunTalk and he says he subscribes to the "NATO" philosophy of gun rights:

"An attack on one gun right is an attack on all gun rights."

I can get behind that.

In the same episode, he referenced how gun rights were absolved from the citizens of Australia because of the blame circle of how collectors, hunters and pistol shooters didn't care when rights pertaining to "the other gun owners" were infringed. I see the same train of thought on forum discussions between those who chose conceal and those who open carry.

We have to stand together on our rights or we will fall together.

Loomis
November 16, 2008, 12:11 PM
An "anti" is someone that doesn't understand the constitution and won't accept the harsh realities of this world.

An "anti" is someone who can't understand why anyone would value an abstraction like freedom moreso than tangible things like comfort and security.

An "anti" is someone that imagines themselves superior to anyone that would contemplate violence of any kind even in self defense.

I clicked the second choice(grey area) although I'm having a hard time figuring out what would constitute an extremist on the side of legal gun ownership. An extremist on the gun grabber side is anyone that tries to ban or limit my access to some kind of useful defensive shoulder fired weapon.

IF you think I should not be allowed to own a full auto FN FAL or G3 or AK or AR, with armor piercing rounds, then you are an "anti".

wacki
November 16, 2008, 12:18 PM
A poem for partial anti's from Niemoller:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

AZ_Rebel
November 16, 2008, 01:06 PM
If someone does not fully support the 2nd Amendment they are an ANTI.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

benEzra
November 16, 2008, 03:31 PM
But I don't believe that EBR's are the most popular rifles in the USA as was mentioned earlier.
The most popular centerfire firearms. I believe .22 rimfires may still outsell EBR's most years, though probably not this year.

Keep in mind that when I said that, I was using H.R.1022 as the operative definition, which includes not only the AR platform, civilian AK's, etc. but also SKS's, mini-14's, M1 carbines, M1A's, and so on. It has been estimated that there are in excess of seven million SKS's alone in U.S. homes (which isn't far behind the Remington 870). I believe mini-14's have sold around two million, AR's are probably selling around half a million a year now (that will add up quick), and so on.

FWIW, here's an article from Outdoor Life on the topic from a year or two ago:

http://www.outdoorlife.com/article/Shooting/The-World%27s-Most-Versatile-Rifle/1

Well, it took me 25 years to come around, but I have to admit that, yes, Jimmy Q was right all along. The AR-15 carbine, the bastard child of a nasty jungle war halfway around the world, is indeed the Swiss Army knife of firearms. The butt-ugly poodle shooter has morphed into not only the longest-lived battle rifle in history, but in civilian hands a mainstay for competition, self-defense and, most recently, many flavors of hunting. In fact, walking the miles and miles of aisles at the 2007 SHOT (Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade) Show made it clear that "black rifles"---rifles derived from military platforms, like the M-4/M-16, the AK-47, the M-14 and the FN-FAL---not only are the best-selling rifles in America, but are the unequivocal driving force in the industry today.

The numbers are staggering. AR-platform guns are approaching handgun-level sales and may soon surpass even Jeff Cooper's mighty 1911, which has ruled the sales roost in the firearms world for the last two decades.

What's the best-selling ammo in America? Try the .223/5.56, standard fodder for the AR-platform guns. Other top performers? Well, there's the 7.62X39, food for the AK-47 and its hundreds of variants, and, of course, the .308/7.62 NATO, feeding the more traditional "battle rifles" like the M-1A, a hot seller, and the reborn FN-FAL. Last I heard, the best-selling "traditional" hunting caliber on the list was the .45/70, of all things.

1911 guy
November 16, 2008, 03:55 PM
An anti is someone who either opposes firearms in general or opposes firearms not suited to their particular sport/recreation. For example, some politicians are "anti" because they see no need for us to have guns. Bubba at the trap range may well be an "anti" because he thinks nobody has any business owning a shotgun with more than three shots, any handgun, or rifle that isn't a bolt action or single shot. Kinda like the French, hates anyone that isn't one of them.

That's very different from my own view. I have no personal use for some types/calibers of firearms, but see no problem whatsoever with someone else having one (or several).

Just as an aside, I have experienced some of the worst anti *particular* gun behavior at ranges and clubs. Kinda like Zumbo, pre-enlightenment.

mljdeckard
November 16, 2008, 04:04 PM
I'm careful not to slam my friends about their level of enthusiasm just because they're not as active as I am.I want their help anyway.

Most Americans are either good gun owners, or neutral ignorant people who don't know enough about the issue to care. Our job is to show as many of them as possible that guns aren't evil. FIRSTHAND, HANDS-ON.

XD-40 Shooter
November 16, 2008, 04:07 PM
I consider an "anti" to be someone who thinks they have the right to tell what types of guns I can or cannot own. They base thier reasoning on pure ignorance. What gives the Brady bunch or anyone else the right to classify AR-15's and AK's as "unusually dangerous and lethal"? Who made them the experts? If a person feels they have the right to restrict what type of firearms I can own, they they are an "anti".

These people refuse to aknowledge the fact that the only thing that makes a gun lethal is.....THE INTENT OF THE USER!:banghead:

My XD has been sitting in my dresser drawer for 3 years, it (the gun) hasn't shot anyone.

BBQLS1
November 16, 2008, 04:45 PM
I picked the middle one, but the options don't exactly represent the way I feel. I wouldn't be comfortable with just anyone owning ICBMs, and I might be a little on the fence about full auto weapons (I don't think they should be restricted as they are now).

Some people are anti, just because they honestly don't know anything about firearms.

yokel
November 16, 2008, 04:59 PM
Anti means anybody who opposes the repeal of NFA, GCA, and every other stupid, useless federal law enacted under the guise of crime prevention and public health/safety.

scythefwd
November 16, 2008, 05:09 PM
Loomis,
To me, an extremist for the pro rkba would be the person who gives a person who has stated a wish to shoot his neighbor a gun because he hasn't commited a crime yet while actively enabling said person to do so after the intent to commit the crime has been stated. I voted middle, but to some people here I am an anti. I own firearms, I also believe there are reasonable restrictions on that right. I do believe that giving a violent and (clinically) insane person a gun should be illegal (which it is and I have yet heard someone say it was a bad idea). The second amendment doesn't address this issue specifically but does indirectly state that this regulation (which I consider reasonable) is unconstitutional as it infringes on that person rkba.

scythefwd
November 16, 2008, 05:13 PM
So, fluff, if it doesn't affect you, it is ok? Just trying to get a clearer picture of your opinion.

I assume that you would vohemiently oppose any law that said nobody could have firearms but old fluff who could have anything he wanted. I don't think anyone who would support that law could be considered anything but anti. I know that is completely unrealistic and would never happen, but anti is as much philosophical as it is action.

Ditto_95
November 16, 2008, 05:15 PM
Any "gun" is protected under the 2A. A response other than that is "anti"!

jlh26oo
November 17, 2008, 06:02 AM
Good examples of theoretical extremist on the other end S.T.F. I have a feeling very few of us would be O.K. with M.H./M.R. patients' unrestricted purchase, and age restrictions are even a finer line. I think we all agree children and clinically insane should be restricted to a certain extent, but I'd be surprised if we all agreed at what age that should be and who determines to what degree and type of mental disorder.. because THEY might be wondering what part of "SHALL NOT" it is that WE don't understand, right? Similarly blakenzy differentiating degrees of antis so to speak, depending not only on their stance, but according to how active they are. Hadn't considered that. A fine line there too, between personal opinions and actively supporting, especially with the internet. From voting on a poll, to off-hand comment in a thread, to dedicated blogs etc. Gray areas.

Otherwise, "you're an anti if you are O.K. with limits on what I can get, but I'm not an anti if I'm O.K. with limits beyond that" (specific firearms and generally who can buy them) comes off as a double-standard at best.

sturmgewehr
November 17, 2008, 06:52 AM
If you're of the mindset the 2nd Amendment is for "sportsmen" and "hunters" and you believe certain classes of firearms should be illegal while your "sporting" arms should be protected - you're an anti of the worst order.

I would rather deal with someone who thinks all firearms are bad and should be banned than a cancer from within like the type of person I mention above.

yokel
November 17, 2008, 07:44 AM
Alas, it seems apparent that over the years and decades a significant number of folks who like to think of themselves as supportive have become inured to at least some regulations and restricitions.

For example, Americans have already been propagandized into believing a collection of myths that paint machine guns and shotguns with a certain barrel length as intrinsically evil and the right tool for a thug, gangster, and hoodlum.

22-rimfire
November 17, 2008, 09:34 AM
Obama said or published that he was against restricting firearms for hunters or sportsmen. That is just like what John Kerry said during his campaign 4-years ago. He also believes in common sense firearm regulation.... there lies the problem as it is his common sense, not mine. He does not think Americans should be allowed to own handguns or EBR's. I would be willing to push the list of what he feels are acceptable guns to only ones that the Australian government allows and to purchase and own requires qualification for a permit/license and essentially no rapid fire firearms for anyone including 22 rifles. That is scary to me. I will spend my money fighting any legislation that restricts the ownership or purchase of a any firearms or accessories beyond the laws currently on the books. I would favor further relaxation of federal laws that restrict purchase and ownership of firearms, but I'm not holding my breath that anything significant will be changed in this regard.

Obama has a flawed reference point when it comes to firearm ownership and use.

Alas, it seems apparent that over the years and decades a significant number of folks who like to think of themselves as supportive have become inured to at least some regulations and restricitions.


True. Those that have been born since 1968 and that is most have never lived when firearms ownership was less restricted and are used to the concept that the government can dole out rights and permits as it sees fit.

Anything that diminishes or limits the at right to keep and bear firearms is anti freedom.

22-rimfire
November 17, 2008, 09:46 AM
If you're of the mindset the 2nd Amendment is for "sportsmen" and "hunters" and you believe certain classes of firearms should be illegal while your "sporting" arms should be protected - you're an anti of the worst order.


I would have to disagree with you. They are not an anti- of the worst order and they are not a cancer to be cut out. If you believe in the right to keep and bear arms in general, they can be taught to see the light.

Many of these people voted for Barack Obama in the election. They would say that firearms are not the No. 1 issue upon which they cast their vote and disregard the extremist view propagated by the far right that Obama will further regulate firearms sales and ownership. They simply say it will never happen.... which I can not agree with, but that is the way they view things.

Harve Curry
November 17, 2008, 09:55 AM
People get so attuned to being regulated they don't know their being regulated.
Some even think you have to have a nics check or paper work drawn up to sell a firearm face to face, you have to do it anywhere and everywhere in the USA!! Well you don't. Some states still have freedom like it was at the turn of the 19th century. Freedom is just that. You have to learn to read a sentence like the one below and go by the defintion of the words, or you will sink us all, period.

Beatnik
November 17, 2008, 10:32 AM
I've often said before that there are three types of people in the gun argument.

A small minority of well-researched pro-rights pro-gun types,
a small minority semi-researched emotional anti-gun grabbers,
and the vast majority of people who just haven't put any thought into the issue.

If you don't own guns, never shot one, and it isn't part of your voting decision, you're in group three.

If you own guns, hunt regularly, own an NRA life membership, and vote to uphold your sportsman's heritage, you're still in group three.

Zangetsu
November 17, 2008, 11:11 AM
I personally think "arms" does not pertain only to guns, but all and any weapon someone wishes to have, be that a sawed off shotgun or a sword. I also believe that we have the right to possess and carry said arms around with us on our person if we so choose. No, I wouldn't lug a katana around with me if given the opportunity, but there should be nothing stopping me from doing so if I wanted to. I think restrictions on the size of the blade on a knife one can legally carry are just as silly and just as dangerous as the stupid arbitrary restrictions placed on firearms. The same people who made the laws that say that a knife with a 6" blade going to land me in jail when a 4" blade is A-OK are the same ones that say a pistol grip on a rifle makes it evil.

Audrey
November 17, 2008, 12:15 PM
If you're of the mindset the 2nd Amendment is for "sportsmen" and "hunters" and you believe certain classes of firearms should be illegal while your "sporting" arms should be protected - you're an anti of the worst order.

I believe there was a recent thread here discussing this very stance. In fact, it is the position of one of the NRA board members. And while I don't believe it is the "worst" anti stance, it certainly is curious why one would be allowed to have it at the NRA.

That said, anyone limiting my RKBA in any way is an anti. If I were to limit your ability to breathe in any way would I be anti life?

TEDDY
November 17, 2008, 03:29 PM
what would you do if you were me ??I grew up with no gun buying restictions.
only untill 1968 law came into effect,you could by any thing.20 mm antitank guns $100 ammo $1.rd.mgs if you paid tax.no checks.walk in store and buy walk out.I still feel that way.as to people who should not have guns,they get eliminated any way.its a tricky slope as who is unfit to own???you me him.
"every body is crazy except you and I and I am not sure about you"
think of that."pryor restrant":rolleyes::uhoh::(

Zangetsu
November 17, 2008, 05:34 PM
no checks.walk in store and buy walk out.

This makes a good point...for DECADES it was legal to walk into a store and walk out with a fully automatic weapon, and they didn't seem to have the issues we do today with mental defectives opening up into crowds of innocent civilians. The mentally ill have always been around; we shouldn't have more crazies today than we did in yesteryear, so why do we suddenly have a rash of things like school shootings? Obviously it's not from guns being so available, because they were even easier to get in the past when these issues didn't seem to exist.

So this has me wondering...were there always problems like this, with some maniac shooting up a bunch of people for no good reason with the only difference being that today it's just super highly reported, or is this really something completely new to today's society?

deadin
November 17, 2008, 05:39 PM
the only difference being that today it's just super highly reported, or is this really something completely new to today's society?

I think that Television, Video Games and the Internet (i.e. YouTube, etc.) might be added to the mix.

TAB
November 17, 2008, 05:45 PM
Mine is, its ok for one group or person to have something, but every one else can't


Example, gun laws that are passed to restrict something, but its ok to have it if you work for the right person. Another perfect example is Dianne Feinstein... its ok for her to have a CCW, but no one else should.

scythefwd
November 17, 2008, 09:19 PM
Teddy,
I do believe that society was different in 68. The crimes aren't new, but I think the prevalence of them in society and societies acceptance is. Yes, it is more widely reported and therefore the trend looks to be worse on the surface. I will admit to that but I do believe that murder rates per capita are higher now. I blame this pretty much solely on how we are raised now days. Back in the 50's and 60's, respect was taught and practiced. Today there is a sense of entitlement that lets people justify anything to themselves as long as it makes them happy or gets rid of an inconvenience. Back in 68, I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that you wouldn't think about honking at someone that just cut you off. Today you have to think about it because it isn't unheard of to people to pull over and shoot the person that honked (heard of several last year in DC, where I work, and in NJ as well). Back in 68, society was more mature and considerate, which promotes responsibility and allows for no regulations. Today I would say society as a whole is immature and needs some rules until we can grow up, just like a toddler.

Loomis
November 17, 2008, 09:48 PM
Balkanization.

THis is the difference. In the old days, People were expected to assimilate. Nowdays, assimilation is racist. So now we have people that hate eachother for their differences, when before we weren't ALLOWED to be all that different. We all said the pledge of allegience every morning and sang a patriotic song. We all went to public schools We all were eligible for the draft and many of us WERE drafted and served admirably or were kicked out.

In the old days, employers were loyal to their employees and employees were loyal to their employers. THe supervisors and managers and even the new owners were chosen FROM THE EXISTING WORKFORCE in that company. THe owners kid was forced to do every lowly job in the plant before putting on a tie and playing yes-man to his daddy. NOwdays the kid doesn't want anything to do with the company, he just want's his daddy's shares when he dies. Nowdays, the supervisors and higher ups have never even seen the inside of the plant and are changed more often than the secretaries are. They give eachother golden parachutes and the run away after raping the company.

Everyone is in it for themselves. To hell with the other guy. Kill him on the freeway if you can get away with it. screw the world. It screwed me so I'm getting even. To hell with the government. To hell with the rich people. To hell with the military. To hell with the poor people. To hell with the immigrants. To hell with the old white guys. To hell with the rednecks. to hell with the environmentalists. Just give me mine or I'll kill you for yours.

Bring back public schools the way they were in the 50s 60s and early 70s and most of this crap will start to dissappear.

That's my theory.

scythefwd
November 17, 2008, 09:58 PM
Teddy,
While you said it more fiery than I did, I agree 99%. There are a few out there that would rather walk away than fight and have learned to be content. I would hope that I am an exception. I guess we will wait and see on that one, cause my employment record doesn't show it (3 contracts in 2 years) but I really can explain that.

scythefwd
November 17, 2008, 09:59 PM
Sorry Teddy, I mean Loomis.

Harve Curry
November 17, 2008, 10:27 PM
Loomis,
You said a mouthful of true stuff there. Quick story to illustrate more on what you wrote:
My mothers side imigrated from Italy and Sicily in the 1890's to early 1900's. Grandma lived well into year 2000 getting to see two centuries like she wanted. She used to tell me how her parents wouldn't let her or her brothers speak Italian, moved them to a German neighborhood on Kaiser Wilhelm Blvd, NY, which was renamed because of WWI. She won a $25 War Bond for good grades. To celebrate the end of the Great War the school had a "Bond Fire". She threw her $25 war bond in the fire with the rest of the kids to show their patriotism and " help Uncle Sam" as she put it. They wore red, white and blue hats on parade so from above they looked like the American Flag. Granpa came over and learned english, went and fought in the trenches of WWI France. His cousins lost a grape vinyard in southern California for a airstrip that the Army needed for WWII. Always they were Americans first. Not some ethnic name in front of American. If you pressed them on a application or something it was American of Italian decent, not Italian-American. They didn't believe in bilingual paprwork either. If you were American you spoke, read and wrote english.

texaspunk
November 18, 2008, 03:29 PM
What would make one an ANTI? If someone were not minding THEIR business and had their nose in MINE...especially if what 'they wanted for me' was in opposition to what I had deemed best for my family. If that view is extreme, then I guess I'd better learn to be more comfortable with that label. No wiggle room on this one I think…telling folks how to live is a slippery slope, as we’re finding out.

Harve Curry
November 19, 2008, 10:59 PM
"anti" is relative. It's more a continuum with gray area issues and extremists at both ends

The polls middle choice is much like Bill Clinton's view of the Constitution & Bill of Rights, that it's a flexible framework you can work within, las in a revocable living trust.

user3214
November 19, 2008, 11:10 PM
D'arcy from "Married with Children"

WardenWolf
November 19, 2008, 11:17 PM
It's not a failure to support. It's anyone who actively goes against, via voting or public campaigning, gun rights of any sort. An individual may think what they will. Most firearms owners will vote against anything that will restrict gun rights, even if it only concerns a firearm that they don't own and never intend to own. There are some wolves in sheep's clothing, and I would fully classify those as anti's if they, in any way, vote to restrict gun rights.

Bottom line: if you vote or campaign against gun rights, at all (with the exception of certain totally wackjob proposals), you're an anti. It's all or nothing. You cannot afford to give any quarter because eventually they'll come for your hunting rifle.

Loomis
November 20, 2008, 08:53 PM
(with the exception of certain totally wackjob proposals)


~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh really? And what might those be?

theotherwaldo
November 20, 2008, 09:13 PM
I've run across three different types of "anti".

1. The gun-owning anti. They don't believe that others should have guns. These include: politicians, klansmen, revolutionaries, paranoids, and mixtures of the above. Guns are for them, not you.

2. The gun-controlling anti. Wouldn't touch a gun except perhaps for select sporting events. Guns are carried by their bearers and servants - the police, security guards, and the military.

3. The herd. Guns scare them. Baaaa.

Be careful. Each type must be handled differently if you wish to retain your rights.

Sinixstar
November 20, 2008, 09:28 PM
I think before we can answer that question - we have to take a good hard look at 2 very important words.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Define "well regulated".

WardenWolf
November 20, 2008, 11:26 PM
Oh really? And what might those be?

What would I consider a wackjob proposal? Anything that's obviously a BAD IDEA. Like having emergency rifles in glass cabinets alongside the fire extinguishers in schools. You can argue for allowing CCW-holding teachers, but you can't argue for something that would really just increase the opportunity for shootings and gun theft.

Audrey
November 21, 2008, 01:14 AM
Define "well regulated".

I'll play.

"Well regulated" means that it recognizes corruption, tyranny and crime and is ready to stand behind the taken oath: to uphold the Constitution to eradicate offenses against it.

"Non-well-regulated" means that it ONLY follows orders.

We are all breathing, sentient human beings FIRST; employees second.

Sinixstar
November 21, 2008, 01:18 PM
I'll play.

"Well regulated" means that it recognizes corruption, tyranny and crime and is ready to stand behind the taken oath: to uphold the Constitution to eradicate offenses against it.

"Non-well-regulated" means that it ONLY follows orders.

We are all breathing, sentient human beings FIRST; employees second.


Okay, but is that YOUR definition, or is that the agreed upon legal definition? There is a difference...

ArfinGreebly
November 21, 2008, 02:37 PM
In the language of the day, when those words were written, well regulated meant "trained and practiced, skilled."

The militia is, of course, every adult. In those days, it was every adult male, but today I would say, simply, every adult.

So, since the militia is every adult, and you want a militia that's skilled -- trained and practiced -- it only makes sense that the individual (of which the militia is made) would be armed.

How do you train and become skilled without arms of your own? "Hey, Bob, can I borrow your rifle? I gotta go get trained."

Let us not, however, get distracted by the "militia clause" of the 2nd Amendment. It's not the part that drives the enumerated right: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

People. People is individuals. The people is everyone. Every individual.

Just so we're clear on that.

HK G3
November 21, 2008, 03:09 PM
If you don't support and encourage my right to drive around town in an M1A1 Abrams, whilst proudly open carrying my AT-4 rocket launcher, you are an anti.

TStorm
November 22, 2008, 07:36 AM
Quoting XD-40 Shooter:
My XD has been sitting in my dresser drawer for 3 years, it (the gun) hasn't shot anyone.

For shame! Sitting in a drawer for 3 years??? Take that thing out for a walk!!

If you enjoyed reading about "What do you consider an "anti"?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!