The Motives of Those Who Would Disarm Us


Dave R
February 13, 2004, 05:02 PM
For the 2nd time in memory, I find myself disagreeing with Jeff Cooper. (That is not what this thread is about).

In his current commentaries, he opines about the motives of those who would disarm us. I think he arrives at the wrong conclusion. Here’s what the Good Colonel says (excerpted).

The people who would deprive us of our essential liberty are still there, and their amazing efforts to destroy the God-given rights of free men show no signs of diminishing. We know how hard and continuously these people keep up their fight to disarm us. The important question is why they fight us. Much as they may wish to use crime as their target, it is quite clear to them and as to us that crime is not the problem. Where the citizen is armed, crime goes down. All they have to do is look. Nor is safety an adequate argument for disarmament. Life is unsafe by nature, and mortal accidents occur regardless of the existence or absence of personal arms. I have thought about this at length, and I am puzzled to discover that the subject of the motivation of those who would confound our liberty is not broadly discussed.

I believe this is an appropriate forum to discuss this. Cooper’s conclusion:

Personally I think the motive of those other people is simply envy. Envy, not money, is the root of all evil, and those who cannot cope envy those who can.

I think he's wrong. My opinion is that it is all about power and control. Those who would disarm us simply want absolute control. They do not want us to have the ability to resist. They will never admit it. They will feign shock that I could even suggest such a thing. But that is my belief. I think Cooper may even agree with me, too. Later in the same Commentary, he says this:

America may well be the last best hope of Earth, but there are many Americans who have no understanding of why this is so. It is so because America is the remaining bastion of political liberty. The armed citizen is the essence of political freedom, and an armed citizenry may not be enslaved, as our Founding Fathers well knew. The way to ensure liberty is to ensure that every man be armed - according to the tenets of Mr. Jefferson. Times change, but that principle does not. You can only push people around if they submit to being pushed, and this is impossible if they are personally armed.

I believe that is spot-on. The UN, and the socialist liberals (which includes some Republicans, and excludes some Democrats) do not want the citizenry to be able to resist their will.

What do you think of the motives of those who would disarm us? Envy? Absolute control? Or simply misguided emotion?

If you enjoyed reading about "The Motives of Those Who Would Disarm Us" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Standing Wolf
February 13, 2004, 05:19 PM
I have no doubt envy is part of the motivation for anti-Second Amendment bigotry.

In my experience, people who seek to deprive others of their intrinsic human rights tend to be angry, controlling, resentful, bitter, deeply unhappy people. They live in fear, and their deepest, darkest fears seem to be of the chaos within themselves. They tend to control others to avoid dealing with their own inward demons. They're authoritarian because they find comfort in external order to compensate for the disorder within themselves. They're deathly afraid they're not good enough. They're secretive. They live in terror of being laughed at, ridiculed, not taken seriously, dismissed. They punish. They demand. They require. They seem unable to live and let live. Their professed notions of "tolerance" and "fairness" are exclusive and demeaning. They believe they win when others lose. They don't forget slights or wrongs. They seem to know there's something wrong with them, and so huff and puff their way through life. They know there's not much chance anyone would ever love or respect them, so they content themselves with fear. They'll do anything to get even.

Scratch a bully, find a coward.

February 13, 2004, 05:33 PM
Moderators, I would like to suggest Thread title : The Motive of Those Who Would Disarm Us and Standing Wolf's response be put in the Library.

I feel this belongs with other well written works as written by Lendsringer, Dennis Bateman, et al.

February 13, 2004, 05:35 PM
I think...that's the most Standing Wolf ever wrote in one post, and he saved up all his good stuff for it.

Mods: I second the motion.

February 13, 2004, 05:45 PM
Extraordinarily well said, Standing Wolf! I wholeheartedly agree with the Library suggestion.


February 13, 2004, 06:54 PM
Personally I think the motive of those other people is simply envy. Envy, not money, is the root of all evil, and those who cannot cope envy those who can.

I think he's wrong. My opinion is that it is all about power and control. Those who would disarm us simply want absolute control. They do not want us to have the ability to resist. They will never admit it. They will feign shock that I could even suggest such a thing. But that is my belief. ...

The King James Bible does not state that money is the root of all evil. It states, "...the love of money is the root of all evil..." Money is power. The love of money is the love of power. I believe Dave R is correct.

I'm not going to re-quote Standing Wolf here, it is indeed a most excellent post. However, after reading it I began to wonder who he was actually describing? To me, the description is of the sheeple, those who do not think, those who do not want to think and want others to think for them. In all this, I totally agree.

However, I feel our greatest enemy are those who use the sheeple Standing Wolf so eloquently described. Those who fan the flames of fear so sheeple remain and/or become discontent with firearms and firearms laws as if they were the cause of crime and injustice. Those who woo their votes in order to obtain the power over others. It is those people, although many fewer in number, who I believe do think and do know exactly what they're doing that trouble me the most. I do not believe all those who would infringe our human rights are simply envious, angry, bitter, unhappy etc. The sheeple clamour for outward order, while their leaders tell them that they will obtain this order for them and in the meantime the leader's actions attempt to decrease order so that the sheeple's fear remains or increases.

February 13, 2004, 07:31 PM
I was gonna respond, but Standing Wolf did it so well....

February 13, 2004, 09:44 PM
Well said, Standing Wolf

I stand in awe.

Colonel Cooper is right. You just need to look a little deeper.

They ENVY our control over our own destiny. Being armed means that we can repel their control over us.

February 13, 2004, 10:39 PM
These thread hints at the powerful message contained within the pages of Ayn Rand's colossus, "Atlas Shrugged." In that tale of Left vs Right, Socialism vs Capitalism, we meet head on what it is that motivates the leaders of the Left. It is envy, my friends, nothing less than envy.

The ethos of "self", built on a foundation of self determination and self reliance, frightens the Left. They doubt their own ability to achieve and mock the man who stands up on his own two hind legs and shouts "I can."

Competent men understand and glory in their independence.

Who is John Galt?


Bob Locke
February 13, 2004, 10:54 PM
I had a thought along these lines the other day (and S.W. pretty well said it):

Those who want to take away our guns want to be able to freely use force to impose their will upon us.

February 13, 2004, 10:58 PM
I too stand in awe.

February 13, 2004, 11:42 PM
Yup, quite nice, Standing Wolf :). Another entry for THR library...

Envy was written about by none other than John Ross in "Unintended Consequences" (the fellow in the gun store, and the part where the customs agent tries to take away the hunting rifle). It's certainly present in the disarmament movement, but I believe there are many forms of envy...

There are some who envy others not for their posessions, but for the pure ideals and emotions that others feel when they have those posessions. To Dianne Feinstein, a fine English double rifle is not a work of art, not a way to feed your family, not a means of securing liberty, but a liability, an accident waiting to happen.

There are some people who are celebrities, who have millions of dollars, who have more time and money than most of us could ever dream about, and yet they still go unarmed. They sit in spas, or play golf, or drive expensive cars, because they don't know what to do with their money. To them, guns are ugly, dirty things, to be wielded only by bodyguards and servants, while the great mass of men should never have them.

And then there are those people who fear themselves, who think that within every person lies a killer. These are the mothers who picket concealed carry reform in Wisconsin, these are the columnists who worry about road rage and "crimes of passion," these are the people who see mass murderers in ordinary human beings. True, many of the most infamous killers have had clean records before their killing sprees, but it is impossible to read men's minds.

The principles of this country used to be, "It is better to let ten guilty men go than to imprison one innocent man." Unfortunately, the people in charge of this country in the 21st century are forgetting about that second part.

February 14, 2004, 12:29 AM
Standing Wolf - I suggest that you send that in to Guns & Ammo Magazine(they still have Cooper's commentaries, I think). It is very well written and I think they would publish it.

February 14, 2004, 01:49 AM
I recently stated this in another thread... But through-out the past 6000 years or so of civilization, governments have become tyrannical... All of them. One only needs a good understanding of the past to understand the present and the future. Look at the examples in history, Russia is a prime example. If you think there are no longer people out there who want to control EVERYTHING then you're profoundly wrong. America my friends is not at all immune from tyranny in government. The real goal, as stated by Dave R is that they do want total control. That IS tyranny. They'll use the crime card till they're blue in the face as their motive, but we all know that is incorrect... Again, look at the historic examples of gun control and it's outcomes.

Our worst enemy may not be "terrorists." It' may be those that slowly and surly tighten the noose year after year around the neck of our freedoms. Oh, but it's all for "security" purposes of course... But then again, we know what B. Franklin had to say about that...

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." B. Franklin

The Patriot Acts are a perfect example of this... There are already many states that will not abide by the rules outlined in the Patriot Acts because they paint too broad a brush and they do so all in the name of "security."

Our founding fathers weren't stupid... They knew the nature and tactics of government well.


February 14, 2004, 01:52 AM

Well said Standing Wolf!

Thank you.

February 14, 2004, 03:35 AM
I would not dream of trying to re-explain what Standing Wolf expressed so eloquently.
Kudos S W;)

February 14, 2004, 04:35 AM
OK, I'll play.

"You cannot enslave a free man. The worst you can do is merely kill him"
-Robert A. Hienlien

The fearsom power a truely free man has is immense. For he and those like him will never go quietly into the night, he will never bow to threats idle or manifest, he will never ever surrender.

The very nature of the truely free renders enslavement a non-option, for the dead will never work your fields.

The Free Man has the first and last say in his or her own destiny. She and He can walk proud and tall, and Boldly Go forth in life with the confidence and serenity afforded only one who cannot be compromised.

There are those who lack this compunction, this peace, this freedom. They are full of compromise, willing to accept grose indignity and to live in fear, if it means as little as being guarenteed 3 square meals a day withought worry.

There are people who cannot see the peace, the conviction, the whole-ness and love with which truely free men live. They can only see the power and the command with which others walk this earth, and desire it for their own.

They do not understand this power, for it is not within them. They cannot wield it, and yet desire it all the more, for it shakes them to their very core of inadequacy and misheaving.

Instead, they strike out at the enablers of power. Thinking that by whittleing away at our tools, they will find mere souls as weak as their own, finally us as their equals.

If they only knew how deeply mistaken they are, for they are calling a bluff that was never made. We will never be their equal, because we can-not, will-not, be enslaved.

Like those who know no language, they seek to remove pens for fear of the power they see weilded by those trained in their art.

If they only knew how deeply mistaken they are, for true power lies not in the pen or the sword, but the mind which directs the hand which wields it.

February 14, 2004, 07:00 AM
KJV Bible notwithstanding (Cooper's erudite enough to know it, and practical enough to know that the popular phrase, not the actual writing, is what matters), I further support the nomination movement of Standing Wolf's post. More true, eloquent and beautiful words have rarely been spoken.


February 14, 2004, 07:22 AM
I had a long chat with a gun banner. He said 'as a neuroscience student, humans are apt to follow irrational whims and self-control. During those times they can do crazy stuff like shoot or harm people.' The solution he said was a state monopoly on arms. I said what about vermont, where anyone can buy a gun private sale, and tuck it, loaded, in their waist band and walk around. Why don't they have this 'crazy person' problem. Luck.

On a lighter note, I asked how America was able to prosper under economic liberalism before the rise of big government, his answer... Luck. Hong Kong, bastion of economic liberty, grew from poverty to wealth in 3 generations... Also luck. Than I said, "And you are going to try and tell me that India, China, Russia, Africa, and EVERY OTHER EXAMPLE of statist economics in practice has failed because of a lack of luck?"
His reply: "Just because it has failed every time doesn't mean it will continue to fail, we don't have enough data." :barf: Fascists...


February 14, 2004, 09:03 AM
Another vote here for immortalizing Standing Wolf's prose...:cool:

There are three types of people in this world...

1. Those who want to control others (CONTROLLERS)
2. Those who want to be controlled (SHEEPLE)
3. Those who control themselves & resist the control of others (LIBERATED)

The Controllers want to call the shots for everyone. And there are plenty of Sheeple who will let them for various reasons (security, entitlements, etc.) As a result, the Sheeple never really become competent in providing wealth, security, and sufficiency for themselves--they MUST rely on the good wishes of the Controllers. And, as long as they can be in charge of everyone, the Controllers are happy & providing.

But they're never happy...thanks to the Liberated. :D

The Liberated have one goal in mind--to determine their own path through life w/o having to rely or cow to enforced authority. They follow laws & rules not because they're forced to by the Controllers, but because that law or rule is MORALLY RIGHT. They'd rather earn their own way than take entitlements (& the attached strings) from the Controllers, and the Liberated provide their own security. They also offer to teach the Sheeple how to become Liberated.The Liberated rely on themselves and become quite capable and adept.

And THAT scares the bejesus out of the Controllers. Here's a group that doesn't need their "goodies" to survive. As a result, they don't accept the "strings" that the Controllers attach to the "goodies" that let them control the Sheeple. And the Liberated judge the laws & rules of the Controllers based on a higher moral standard to determine what laws & rules will be followed. The word of the Controllers isn't enough justification for them. Worst of all, the Liberated teach the Sheeple how to become Liberated themselves--reducing the power of the Controllers.

So the Controllers see the Liberated as the enemy--and seek to destroy their enemy.

The Controllers make rules & laws that the Liberated will resist. When they resist, the Controllers will use their Sheeple allies to force the Liberated into choosing their fate--comply or be defeated. The Liberated are faced with overwhelming odds and a moral dilemma. Some of the Liberated will fight to the bitter end, but many will accept the yoke of the Controllers & blend in with the Sheeple--at least in appearance.

But the fire in the spirit of the Liberated always seems to stoke itself brighter in time. And it will burn bright again.

(Please forgive my rants. Philosophy isn't my strong suit until after my second cup of coffee...:uhoh: )

February 14, 2004, 09:22 AM
The more I read the posts here at THR, the more I am impressed. Everything is so passionate and well thought-out. And, the individual abilities of the members to so eloquently arrange their words is truly remarkable!

I hope you are better than I when it comes to individual discussion...

I usually get pissed off when talking to a gun-grabbing liberal and am not able to argue our points to any degree of success. Maybe that is an impossible task....

ENVY and POWER; A combination since the stone age....


February 14, 2004, 09:46 AM
mp95bravo, Welcome to THR

Keep reading. At some point in this exercise, after reading the arguments enough, they will flow like a sonata.

February 14, 2004, 06:30 PM
As much as I hate to gainsay Col. Cooper, whom I admire very much, whose books I have read, and who has kindly replied to several of my letters over the years, I find it pretty hard to believe that a gun-banner such as, say, Senator John Kerry, who is worth -- what? 700 or 800 million? -- who has dated movie stars, and who may very well be the next president, envies *me* because I own a few guns and would like to own some more.

The same goes for senators Schumer, Feinstein, Kennedy, and all the rest of the fat cats. They *envy* one little broke, jobless, friendless man -- who probably couldn't get a date in a whorehouse if he knocked the door down with a wheelbarrow full of money, whose teeth are falling out like in _Papillon_ for lack of access to any sort of dental care or even proper hygiene facilities, whose general health is going down, whose 11-year-old car is hemmorhaging oil and antifreeze, who barely has a place to lay his head, who no longer even has any way to wash his clothing, and must just go dirty or *buy* new clothing if he wants something clean -- because he knows, or used to know, a little about guns and shooting and still owns a few guns (a few more than he can afford)? I'm sorry but it just doesn't scan.

I don't much believe all the King's men in the BATFEces, the FBI, the FBI's marksmanship instructor at Quantico, Lon Horiuchi, or the FBI's HuRT team in general, or any "high-speed, low-drag" member of any big city or small town SWAT team, envies me.

I don't believe the fat, tobacco-spitting deputy who has me pulled over on the side of the road, cooking me in the literally blinding, _Close Encounters of the Third Kind_-like glare of his super-duper roof rack spotlights as I wait for him to run my plates, do a warrant check, and write me a ticket, envies me.

What's envy got to do with it? My strong impression is that all the above-mentioned hold me in absolute and utter contempt. I don't believe they even fear me. If they pretend to, it is only to justify killing me.


February 14, 2004, 07:07 PM
Than I said, "And you are going to try and tell me that India, China, Russia, Africa, and EVERY OTHER EXAMPLE of statist economics in practice has failed because of a lack of luck?" His reply: "Just because it has failed every time doesn't mean it will continue to fail, we don't have enough data."

One day there was a fire in a wastebasket in the Dean's office and in rushed a physicist, a chemist, and a statistician. The physicist immediately starts to work on how much energy would have to be removed from the fire to stop the combustion. The chemist works on which reagent would have to be added to the fire to prevent oxidation. While they are doing this, the statistician is setting fires to all the other wastebaskets in the office. "What are you doing?" they demanded. "Well to solve the problem, obviously you need a large sample size" the statistician replies.


February 14, 2004, 07:11 PM
What's envy got to do with it?"Caeca invidia est" is the way the ancient Romans put it. It means envy is blind. Meaning that in their maddening thirst for what others have, those who envy are blinded, and thus would be unable to enjoy those things even if they were to gain them. Or as Bishop Thompson put it, "Base envy withers at another's joy, and hates the excellence it cannot reach."

Put yourself in the head of a gungrabber for a moment. What is it that they fear? Are they really so irrational as to fear an inanimate object like a gun? NO! Standing Wolf pinpointed exactly what they fear: "and their deepest, darkest fears seem to be of the chaos within themselves." So where does envy come in? They see us, especially those of us who have carried guns - every day for years - they see our resolve, and our self-restraint, and they envy us and hate us for it. How dare we walk down the street and not gun down strangers for an insignificant slight, as they say we would do when the talk about "blood running in the streets" or when they say a place will "turn into Dodge City" if CCW is allowed.

No, despite his years, or more likely because of them, the good Colonel is still hitting the X.

And I nominate Standing Wolf as a worthy replacement for the Colonel when such a thing inevitably becomes necessary.

February 14, 2004, 07:12 PM
ReadyontheRight... geek!

:p :D

February 14, 2004, 07:50 PM
Well, HunterGatherer, I can see how Kerry et al. might envy a man like Col. Cooper, who, while not so rich as they, certainly has all that he wants or needs.

But what of a loser among losers like myself -- a poor man, whose poverty and isolation are bitter to him, and who is old before his time? What is enviable about me?

One of the few differences I have had with the good Colonel over the decades is this often-implied notion of bearing arms and possessing skill-at-arms as being an outward expression or manifestation of some sort of innate inward superiority over all the huddled, unwashed masses, in a kind of Darwinian sense.

I never carried a gun because I thought I was some sort of superior kind of man, entitled, by divine right, as it were, to demonstrate my supremacy over all the "lesser breeds without the law" at every opportunity. If I had thought myself superior, a giant among pygmies, I would not have bothered with a gun at all. I would have just given all the mangy subhumans the back of my hand, perhaps reserving a heavy walking stick with which to drub the real hard cases.

I think the gun-grabbing politicians and their armed henchmen look upon someone like me much as they would a stray, possibly rabid, dog. A repulsive nuisance at best, a vague menace at worst. In either case, something to be controlled or destroyed.


February 14, 2004, 07:56 PM
STANDING WOLF ..... what - can - I - say?? Pure repetition I guess cos it's been said but .. kudos Sir ... you found all your aces in that post and certainly hit the x ring .. good and proper. Outstanding.:)

But if one word should stand out it is .... CONTROL - how else can a weak (numerically) minority .. deal with its ''minions'' effectively.

February 14, 2004, 08:09 PM
But what of a loser among losers like myself -- a poor man, whose poverty and isolation are bitter to him, and who is old before his time? What is enviable about me? Well first I would say that you might seek out counciling to help you feel and think a little better of yourself. That said, I think you are personalizing this a little much. Cooper is talking about a clash of ideas. And third, I think you mistake Cooper's position. He doesn't bear arms (and possess skill with them) to be a superior man, nor does he dedicate his life to thwarting the lawless to demonstrate supremacy. He does so - and advocates for others to do so as well - because for him, and me, and a whole lot of other people, it is the very definition of what it is to be a man.

February 14, 2004, 09:07 PM
The strongest human urge is not sex, but censorship -- censorship of thought and action, not speech.

Standing Wolf
February 14, 2004, 09:36 PM
Thank you for your kind words, one and all!

I doubt anything I've written in this post—or any other, for that matter—is noteworthy. I'm currently slugging it out with the Great American Novel, which I do hope will prove noteworthy; here at the High Road, however, I tend just to shoot from the hip, and being afflicted with arthritis, I tend to pull the trigger on a smaller number of words.

I'm sure every anti-Second Amendment bigot is unique in his or her hatred, but have a hunch the shapes of hatred are largely the same. I believe some people are independent thinkers and actors, and others are dependent, fearful souls who fear, hate, envy, and seek to control the independent types. Other than "control," I'm not sure what the verbs ought to be, nor am I sure they can be clearly delineated. Hateful people tend, for example, to be fearful people. Envious people tend to be deeply self-doubtful, in my experience. I don't know how to sort out causes and effects when it comes to deeply unhappy people. I can see and describe what they do readily enough—but what's the source? Where's the root?

One of the most blatantly, obnoxiously controlling people I've ever known turned out to have been a victim of childhood sexual abuse by a father who was heavily inclined toward drinking too much and turning violent. One of the more vociferous opponents of the right to keep and bear arms I've known—we dated a few weeks quite a few years ago—spent a great deal of time in what I later realized could only be called "rage:" at her ex-husband, her children, her parents, her job, many of the people she supervised, and yes, me, too, in due time. I dated another woman a couple times in the late 1980s who relieved herself of assorted snide remarks about the "Neanderthal Reactionary Association" and "slobs who like to shoot deer with substitute penises." She was quite the obsessive individual and a heavy drinker into the bargain.

I don't understand why they're the way they are. I see what they do and how they do it, and it's apparent they're fearful, usually unprincipled people or people with perverse principles, that Kerry individual, for example—but I don't understand why they're the way they are. They're bitter, but I don't comprehend what they're bitter about. All the anti-Second Amendment bigots I've known have had cold, usually arrogant personalities, and those I've known at all well have invariably turned out to be deeply self-doubtful, hence overly assertive and apparently extremely sure of themselves.

Sources? Causes? Roots? I wish I knew. They're as impenetrable to me as communists and child molesters.

February 14, 2004, 11:24 PM
"Seek counciling"? Gee, thanks, that's tremendously helpful. I'm sure you didn't mean that to sound as condescending and insulting as it did, but every shrink I ever met or heard of was militantly anti-private gun ownership, and my understanding is that the official position of their professional organization is one of opposition to all private gun ownership.

So, I'm supposed to go in there and tell one of these creatures that my guns are literally the only good thing left in my life, the only source of any kind of self-respect or any hope for the future that I have. But it's a shrinking hope just the same, as I have had no place to shoot for over five years, so most of my former skill has fled away from me, and I am not even sure that I can preserve my weapons from rust and corrosion anymore, as my apartment leaks -- sometimes *gallons* in the course of a day -- both from the rain getting in through the roof and from condensation from the roof-mounted air conditioner, which doesn't drain properly, but pours down through my ceiling. No I can't afford to move. I wiped out my savings to get moved into *here* (you don't want to know what the place before this was like), and I've done nothing but go deeper and deeper into the hole ever since.

Besides the aforementioned oil and coolant leaks my car suffers from, the interior (passenger-side front seat) was badly contaminated with *battery acid* last September 26, due to someone else's* carelessness/heedlessness, not mine. No, I cannot afford to get another car, or even to fix this one.

My guns may win me my freedom and preserve it someday, if I live long enough and don't become completely disabled, and can ever get out of here and into some place where I *can* keep and bear them again. But right now I certainly do not enjoy all these blessings of liberty I keep hearing tell of. They jolly well *have* enslaved me, already. What am I but a slave when I comply, under duress, with all sorts of laws and regulations I consider wrong, anti-constitutional, and downright evil, because I have no other choices but prison or death? What am I but a prisoner as I sit there baking in the glare of his deliberately blinding lights as the fat, tobacco-spitting deputy takes twenty minutes to write me a ticket? What would you have me do in that situation? I might *break* free someday, but I'm sure not a free man right now. I'm not even free, much less any kind of Nietzschean superman, striding like a colossus through the teeming multitudes of natural salves (in the Aristotelian sense).


February 15, 2004, 01:52 AM
I'm sure you didn't mean that to sound as condescending and insulting as it did But what of a loser among losers like myself -- a poor man, whose poverty and isolation are bitter to him, and who is old before his time? What is enviable about me? Please spare me your indignation. :rolleyes:

Joe Demko
February 16, 2004, 08:49 AM
Actually, Maimaktes, I've never bought into the "they envy us" idea either. I don't believe that they even fear us, particularly. We are, I think, repugnant, but useful. When one wants to institute a police state (which both major parties want to do BTW) it is useful to have something to fan the fears of the general populace over. Therefore, it behooves them to keep us around, if in limited numbers. Does anybody really think they live in terror of you and your rifle? KerryBush et. al. aren't coming to your house to take your gun. If you need to be "dealt with" (even just as a publicity stunt) it will be a bunch of uniforms, most of whom earn less than 40k a year, who come to face you and your almighty rifle. If you kill one, or a bunch, BushKerry won't care. In fact, it makes good publicity for tightening restrictions on society in general.
Envy us?
Fear us?
Willing to use us?

February 16, 2004, 11:09 AM
Golgo-13 postulated that:
Envy us?
Fear us?
Willing to use us?

That was the most cogent, succinct and scary hypothesis yet...

And I think he's right!

February 16, 2004, 04:55 PM
Scarier is that we are WILLING to be used, continuing to believe that their kind and our kind can co-exist when our values and worldviews are diametrically opposed.

All of the theories about The Other Side are right. They do not represent a monolithic force. We represent many different things to the antis, depending on the individual psyche of the critic. They see us as throwbacks, obstacles on the evolutionary path to a state-run utopia. Perhaps on some level they are correct and a fierce desire for freedom is an aberration, an experimental mutation. Time will tell whether our mutation engenders a new species or a political dead-end.

February 16, 2004, 05:10 PM
Want something else scary to contemplate? I make no apolgies for posting this again ... and IIRC it was Dave06 first used it .... read it and think about it ... now that's a way to achieve control?!

Follow on Golgo's succinct postulation .... and add this to it .... emphasis is mine.

Ayn Rand was a prophet!

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

-- 'Atlas Shrugged' 1957

February 16, 2004, 05:15 PM

Dave R
February 16, 2004, 05:16 PM
Wow, I thought I was taking a fairly extreme position saying those who would disarm us seek only to remove our ability to resist their will.

Some of you are even more paranoid than me. ;)

I understand the Rand quote, and believe there are some in politics who overtly buy into that notion of making more laws than people can obey, as a means of control..

But I think there are more people in politics who are not smart enough to plan that. They are just scared of people with guns. And they're scared that they can't control us. And they don't think much beyond that.

I could be wrong. And that's kinda scary.

confed sailor
February 16, 2004, 08:42 PM
This has definatly taken a turn for the Metaphysical.

I see this a fear on the upper levels of a gun grabbers pysche, and as you dig deeper the fear is churned up by the envy deep inside them. At the outermost levels the Fear and Envy turn to hate. A hot irrational hate, a logic defying hate. Because this hate cannot be combated directly, I think we have to get inside and work on the roots of the hate for us (gun owners/liberated people)

as for how, search me, im just a history major.

February 17, 2004, 05:49 AM
"seek counciling"??? according to my pocket webster's
hunter has just told maimkates to seek an "assembly of lawmakers":confused:

did you mean "counseling"??:rolleyes:

most social workers I've ever talked to were absoultely against all guns.
"for the children":uhoh:

I think Maimaktes may be speaking for the hundreds thousands of poorer gun owners who don't have.
c,more then 10$ an hour
e,marketable skills

I think Maimaktes is a damm good writer,I have not read his other post so I don't know if I agree with him on anything other then the right to keep and bear.

I do know that I am just keeping my head above water and had to postpone a .357 lever action I wanted to buy for a year because I got sick and had to have an operation.

Just because you're angry or bitter does not qualify you as "needing an assembly of lawmakers"
it may mean you're right.

February 17, 2004, 08:54 AM
Envy of others for their LACK of fear.

Hatred of others for CAUSING fear.

Control/dominance to PREVENT/RELIEVE fear.

Why's the fear of gun-owners generated? I think it's because of empathy. To wit: the only way to attempt to predict what others may do in a given situation is to imagine one's self in that situation and ask: "Now, what would I do?"

Many gun-grabbers are demonstrably a little on the wacked-out, unstable, hyper-emotional side of the table. Lots of liberals spout nonsense like: "If I had a gun, I'd shoot someone for cutting me off in traffic!"

Asking these types of folks to empathize with a law-abiding, stable, safety-oriented gun-owner is to invite cold sweats, nightmares, and ulcers. They cannot control their own impulses enough to trust themselves to own a gun. HOW COULD YOU ASK THEM TO TRUST SOMEONE WHO'S IMPULSES THEY CAN'T EVEN FEEL?

How could they? They can't even begin to COMPREHEND what that level of impulse control entails. It's an entire realm of existence that's completely outside of and beyond their experience.

They can only hazard a guess based on what they know. What they know (Of themselves, which is all they can compare with.) terrifies them. Therefore they seek to control the situation in order to pro-actively defeat/relieve these terrors, the solution of any intelligent phobic who's tired of being afraid. Fear can be a powerful motivator, and a ruthlessly effective one.

I can authenticate this mindset, at least somewhat. I am/can be, on occaision, phobicly shy. Initiating conversations with people I don't know, even over the phone, can be akin to trying force myself to step off a cliff or pick up a burning log, but without any real concrete reason (That I've been able to track down.) to justify a stab of mind-blurring panic. That leaves me with a few unpleasant after-affects:

I am bitterly envious of people to whom ordinary conversational interaction is an easy thing.

I :fire:HATE:fire: the telephone.

I am very pro-active in planning around and avoiding those circumstances that might result in being panic-slapped. This results in my being very antisocial, for the most part.


I don't have control issues. I recognize that my problem is ENTIRELY PERSONAL.

I may be envious of other folk's ease of communication, but I don't hate them for it, or I'd wind up hating the whole of humanity. (I do, on one level, but it doesn't rule my existence or I'd kill myself.)

It's true I hate the telephone when it rings, (If I had Dangerous Brain Powers, the telephone would be slag.) but I reserve my hate for the machine itself, not the caller, who has no idea that the friggin' bell has just shot a bolt of fear into my brain. (Conversely, I have a hard time calling people I know, because I don't want to disturb them with what disturbs me so much. :rolleyes: ) Hating the machine is easily defused, as it can't appreciate it.

And I decided I really don't like social situations, and that I'm ok with that. Lonelyness I can fend off much more easily than adrenaline-reinforced tension.

Basically, I take responsibility for my fear, rather than externalizing or handing it off to outside causes or people. I find that it bothers me a lot less when I do so, as it's easier to change my mind than the world. Liberal ideology of late seems to regard the concept of personal responsibility to be anathema, whereupon to expect gun-owners to excercise such responsibility isn't part of the gun-grabber's worldview, a cicumstance that I agree would be frightening at best.

I really liked Standing Wolf's asessment of the opposition's mindset. It makes a lot of sense to me. I can understand it, and some of the reasons behind it, even if he can't. Mayperhaps I've cleared some of that up with this post, although I can only speak for myself. Far be it from me to presume that the workings of MY twisted mind should be broadly applied to the world at large. (That'd be humility, right? Another element one finds lacking in the left.)

Mind you, understanding a mindset isn't condoning it. I'm of the opinion that people should keep their issues to themselves, where appropriate. Forcing the world to accomodate one's sensitivities strikes me as offensively arrogant, an attitude that seems to run through a lot of neo-utopian, statist, academic-elite nonsense that passes for left-wing ideology these days.

O, and BTW, no-one's put this one up yet. This link clinches the deal, as I see it:

February 17, 2004, 02:57 PM
I am told by the many anti's I talk to is that they are afraid
of the "wild west" and "blood in the streets"
not realizing that real life is different then what hollywood has taught them.

They fear what they don't know.(Most of them at least)

The Rosie O'Donnel's and DiFi's of the world
are plain knuckle dragging nazi's who call themselves liberals,
much like hitler called himself socialist

Samurai Penguin
February 17, 2004, 04:49 PM

I believe, sir, that you have nailed the whole thing down. I can disagree with nothing you've just said, and I've been there, to some small degree, myself. Kudos! Now the question:

You realize that your phobias are your problem. How do we inculate that realization into the minds of the anti's? Any thoughts?

February 17, 2004, 05:10 PM
"But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

And the people who pose the most of a threat to those that want control are the gun owners. Just as Bush will sign the AWB if it hits his desk... IN due time, gun owners will be criminals if things keep going the way they're going. This is also why the Patrio Acts were passed... When you actually look at the verbage they use to define a "terrorist" the realiy of all of this becomes even more scary.


Black Snowman
February 17, 2004, 07:14 PM
Understanding why someone is inclined to think a certain way will hopefully help develop arguments to help persuade them. As far as I can tell fear is the defining factor of human action. Knowing people's fears and how to dispel them, or direct them to something they should fear more greatly will hopefully strengthen our cause.

For instance. Telling someone that guns don't kill people, but that people kill people may not be as helpful as making sure that people know that if you have the power to kill someone, you can use it to save the lives of yourself and those around you. That not acting to protect someone if you have the means is nearly as morally destitute as attacking them yourself.

If we play up our fears against theirs, maybe we stand a better chance of winning our arguments.

<Controversial Content Warning> Before you get offended here me out, this isn't meant as an attack, just a study in history and theories on biology and evolution. Most of this is paraphrasing and gross simplification of work by Dr. Dennis Moore and a whole heap of my own observations and assumptions and is just a theory and therefore carries absolutely no weight other than what you prescribe to it, but it makes sense to me.

If you have a problem with the following statements please PM me so as to avoid this degrading into an irrelevant arguments, or just understand that the following may be offensive to some parties and we can agree to disagree ahead of time. Thanks for your co-operation :) <puts on flame retardant suit>

I think a lot of the changes in the political atmosphere have a lot to do with the introduction of the thought process of women into a system created by men, with men running in it in mind.

Some theories hold that men and women have different prerogatives in their thinking necessitated by survival of the species in our formative years. Certainly I think we can all agree that men and women's though process differ ;) Women, being the bearer of children, are critically important to the survival of the species and more frequently vulnerable. A women has a better chance of reproducing and continuing the species if surrounded by a buffer of other potential targets and additional defenders.

Men, as a gross generalization, being essentially disposable in the grand scheme of species survival develops as protector, combatant, and hunter. Survival for the male is dependent on his prowess in protecting and providing for himself, his mate, and children. These fundamental survival traits manifest themselves in vastly differing perspectives and philosophies.

As a gross generalization, women don't necessarily seek personal protection but a protective environment. Their perceptions tend to be skewed toward removing potential threats to see that the odds of their being put into danger are minimized. Their survival should something actually occur is not forefront in their thought process.

Men on the other hand tend to take a much more individual, personal, and active approach to their safety. This is exemplified in men tending to have a higher acceptable level of risk for things like motorcycling and contact sports.

Recent studies of women deployed in frontline combat also support these theories. Women of various nations deployed in combat disproportionately and rapidly become pregnant. According to the theory this is biologically exactly what they're programmed to do to preserve the species. Get themselves out of harms way and ensure safe reproduction.

Ideology is driven far more by biology than we would like to admit. These theories try to explain the differing perspective on "safety" that the major schools of though on self defense. Obviously it's they're only theories, and since people are involved exceptions are the rule thanks to our potential for higher brain function.

PS and OT: I was wanting to reference Dr. Moore's books and television specials on the relationship of biology, survival, and gender differences but all references to his work seem to have evaporated. Or I'm remember his name completely wrong. Either way, I'm rather annoyed because doesn't show any of the 6 or so specials he did that you used to be able to order from them and I can't find any of his 6 or so books on He really has some done some extremely insightful and ground breaking work.

February 19, 2004, 10:01 PM
Hmmm. Not right off. But a few thoughts.

First, I don't think my take on the situation neccessarily nails down the ENTIRE issue. I think I've only touched on one aspect of the issue, which is complicated and has many facets. Black Snowman's theory presents a subtle and far-reaching viewpoint that is very powerful and makes a great deal of sense. Additionaly, like my own asessment, it is non-exclusionary. Both theories can exist simultaneously without discrediting each other.

Second, changing the "non-responsibility for personal fears" attitude is going to be a difficult task. My perception is that the spread of this attitude is a somewhat lately condition, becoming widspread over the past 25 years or so, and is exemplified and reinforced by numerous court cases wherein individuals successfully pass off responsibility for the negative consequences of stupidity to the objects of stupid actions rather than taking their lumps as the perpetrators of stupid actions. How it is that people can raise children to look at themselves as not responsible unless it can be proven is outside my thinking and experience. I see that as a betrayal of personal integrity. Where/when we, as a society, dropped the requirement for personal integrity, or redefined it somehow so as to allow shirking personal responsibility, is somewhat of a mystery to me.

The primary difficulty I see with addressing the fearful aspects of the situation is that convincing a given individual who believes otherwise that their fears are their own problem requires that person to acknowledge that they are a coward in their own eyes. This is what I think makes the irresponsibility attitude so attractive, to wit: "I am not a weak-willed coward, these worries are not my problem." This is a very simplistic, not-personally-challenging worldview that amounts to the lazy-man's way out. The fact that this worldview seems to have become pervasive in our society of late does not speak well of it or it's future.

What's to be done? I'm not sure. I'm no sociologist, and I was aghast when I first started reading about consequence-dodging lawsuits in the late 70's. (I think the first one was a mother who was suing the city when her drunken teenage son killed himself climbing up and falling off of a closed drawbridge. There were barbed-wire fences and "No Tresspassing" signs in abundance, nevertheless the city was found negligent in allowing Mr. Young-drunk-dummy's determination to be an idiot overpower their ideas of what constituted common sense.) While I can understand the motivations of greedy lawyers to promote the idea that the city was negligent in protecting drunk idiots from themselves from a financial standpoint, I do not understand how that could translate into a cultural value that people raise their children with.

Or is it that I simply am severely mis-understanding the power of simple greed over personal integrity in the average citizen? And if that's the case, how come it didn't happen until now? Didn't judges and juries used to throw this kind of thing out as frivolous before? When did society's standards for justice for the individual change on such a fundamental level? I was a teenager when that dummy fell off the bridge, and the suit was idiotic to me then. Apparently it wasn't such to that idiot's mother, nor the judge and jury of the case, which would indicate the sea-change in attitude pre-dates my awareness of such things, which rather limits my understanding of it.

My current understanding suggests that the only solution is to fundamentally up-end the justice system in America, and hope that that trickles down to the level of what people teach their children. Personally, I was going to raise my kids correctly, and make sure that they had the right ideas about personal responsibility, as I was tought by my parents. I haven't got any kids, :( and I'm not about to tell people how to raise theirs, so I'm open to suggestions at this point.

It seems to indicate a systemic problem, but I am loathe to TELL people how to think, lest someone decide they have the right to dictate my thinking to ME.

A tough one, that.

Art Eatman
February 19, 2004, 11:53 PM
Another, additive factor, is that of the perception of personal safety and security.

For over forty years, now, this country has been obsessed with removing any sort of risk from life. Seat belts, helmets, social programs, restrictions on all manner of once-common items and actions. Years ago, I coined the term "Naderism" to mean the idea that if we just passed enough laws and wrote enough regulations we would have a nice, warm, soft, fuzzy swaddling-cloth world. "Quite Safe At Any Speed"

Keep in mind that in this country we tend to legislate against things, as much as we do people's behavior. The drug laws illustrate this, along with gun control laws.

Thus those who are ignorant of the "World of Guns" are afraid of something they consider to be dangerous, and in this ignorance support those who would ban guns from other motives, other agendas.


February 20, 2004, 05:03 AM
I was going to say irrational fear of objects and other people, but the first part of my signature says it all.

It always amazes me how many people are afraid that if someone was drunk or angry and there was a knife in the room that someone would end up stabbed. If there are knives in the room, like most rooms, then change the word knife to pistol and the last word to shot in the first sentence. I imagine most gun owners would feel the same way about a hand grenade as other do towards knives or guns.

People always fear other people and society as a whole. They want to gain some type of control over others to feel safe.

February 20, 2004, 10:48 AM
After reading all these posts -and being influenced in no small part by those of Maimaktes- I have been reflecting more on the motives of the people who would ban guns, as well as those who would resist. In the end, I all comes down to the fact that a hell of a lot of us are unhappy because we're lving with the very real possibility of the Second Amendment being turned into a dead letter.

But the key word is "unhappy." What is happiness? Rather than try to answer that question myself, I will have recourse to one of those Dead White Males, those Greeks who had no remote controls, super bowls, nor shopping malls- and yet who managed to get out more truth in fewer words than anyone since. (Perhaps they managed BECAUSE they didn't have those things....)

This is what the big boys write (Aristotle, in this case, from Book I of the Nichomachean Ethics:

"-both the general run of men and people of superior refinement say that it is happiness, and identify living well and doing well with being happy; but with regard to what happiness is they differ, and the many do not give the same account as the wise. For the former think it is some plain and obvious thing, like pleasure, wealth, or honour; they differ, however, from one another- and often even the same man identifies it with different things, with health when he is ill, with wealth when he is poor; but, conscious of their ignorance, they admire those who proclaim some great ideal that is above their comprehension."

In short, everyone has different opinions on what it takes to be happy- so NONE of those things can BE happiness. And every other good- health, wealth, friends, family, can be denied us or arbitrarily taken away by sickeness, accident, or violence. (I'll get where I'm going eventually, don't worry, ans specifically back to HERE).

The only good that cannot be taken away, Aristotle says, is the human soul acting with complete virtue, not for a day or a week, but considered over the whole span of a human life. To do this, each man must have a sufficiency (and only that) of the world's goods, as alluded to in the previous paragraph. Yet happiness does not exist in direct proportion to having MORE, as Aristotle says:

"For the man who is truly good and wise, we think, bears all the chances life becomingly and always makes the best of circumstances, as a good general makes the best military use of the army at his command and a good shoemaker makes the best shoes out of the hides that are given him; and so with all other craftsmen. And if this is the case, the happy man can never become miserable-"

.....which, I might add, it sounds like Maimaktes is doing, and doing well: making the best of what little he has.

But where do GUNS come in? Apart from the great pleasure that may be derived from hunting, shooting, reloading, etc., we really defend our gun ownership from the standpoint of preserving our life, liberty, and pursuit of you-know-what from the forces that would remove that happiness, or its elements. And although our immediate concern might be with encountering some serial killer lurking in the bushes outside our house or apartment, we all know what the biggest force is we are ever likely to encounter: government. Those "old guys" knew that. The Roman Senator M. Tullius Cicero said "There never was a government that was not a liar, a thief, and a malefactor." And it doesn't matter whether you're a Democrat, a Republican, or a Vegetarian, that's the truth, and a government is only inhibited where it knows the costs of any action it may contemplate will be too high.. Individuals and groups can be picked off by the FBI, ATF, or, if necessary, the military. But when faced with the uncertainty of X million people known to have a rifle over the fireplace, behind the kitchen door, or in the closet, the scope of action of any government, no matter how despotic, is limited.

When the Revolutionary War broke out, a Pennsylvania Tory, in a letter to friends in England, enjoined them as follows: "This province has raised up a thousand riflemen who can put a ball into a man's head at a hundred paces. Therefore tell your officers who shall come out to the colonies hereafter to put their affairs in order before departing." Now THERE is limited government.

February 20, 2004, 11:24 AM
Well done.

Happiness is FREEDOM. Everything else is icing on the cake.

February 20, 2004, 11:26 AM
I agree with the control issues discussed above but I think there's another factor at work as well: plain old fear of the unknown.
Almost none of the Anti's I've met have ever held a gun in their lives. None of them have ever shot one. Three people that I know were hard-core Anti's and after a few reluctant trips to the gun range, the response has been the same. "These things aren't so bad after all. In fact, I kind of like it."
Fluke? Maybe. But I'd bet a lot of money if I had it that a quick trip to the gun range would cure a lot of Anti-gun sentiment real quick. And if not, well, accidents do happen.:evil:


February 20, 2004, 12:23 PM
Just remembered what was said to me by one raving (totally unconvertible, died in wool .... and dogmatic as they come) anti ...

''I'd rather be dead than handle one of those, let alone shoot one.

I just replied ...

''Where you live ... you just may get your wish''!:p (lived in DC)

Then another similar version ...

''You'd not catch me dead touching one of ''those'' things''.

Required answer .....

''Nope - reckon you wouldn't'' :rolleyes: :D

February 20, 2004, 02:14 PM
I think you guys are missing the mark....

I don't buy into the police state theory, the control theory or the envy theory. I think it is all about stupidity.

The MMM is composed of soccer moms that have never had any dealings with firearms other than maybe knowing someone that was killed with one - Guns = bad.

The government wants to fight crime to get votes. Guns are sometimes used in crimes - Guns = Bad.

The media brain washes the ill-informed with their messages of guns are bad and spinning buzz words to make things sound worse than they are. Yet the media consistantly gets it wrong. All they report is - GUns = Bad

How many in the VPC, HCI or Brady Bunch or any other anti groups could tell you the difference in an M4 or a Heavy barreled Remington and which is the better "Sniper Rifle". OR cares.

They are ignorant of the 2nd ammendment and its reason for being. They are ignorant of guns. If the population was educated that guns don't kill people of their own will, that defense is good, that the 2nd ammendment is not about hunting there would be less gun grabbing going on.

Art had the most on target post in my estimation.


February 21, 2004, 11:02 AM
This is a good thread. :)

Thanks for the reading!


Mark Tyson
February 21, 2004, 11:18 AM
No, I don't think they're stupid, not most of them anyway. The VPC damn well knows the difference between an "assault weapon" and an automatic rifle. They just use the term "assault weapon" to frighten people into buying into their agenda.

If you ask me, the motivation of the antis is simple: they value safety more than freedom. They don't value the right to bear arms, so they're prepared to give it away in the name of public safety. Many of them wouldn't dream of infringing on 4th or 1st amendment rights because they hold those rights in high regard. But rights that they look down upon are fair game.

It's just a question of values.

It's sort of like someone saying "I'm an atheist, so I'm not concerned if the government infringes on someone's freedom of religion." Or "I'm not on trial, so I don't care if the government tortures prisoners." And it's equally repugnant in my view.

Samurai Penguin
February 21, 2004, 11:50 AM
It's sort of like someone saying "I'm an atheist, so I'm not concerned if the government infringes on someone's freedom of religion." Or "I'm not on trial, so I don't care if the government tortures prisoners." And it's equally repugnant in my view.

Hear hear, Mark!

For the record, I am an atheist. I think a belief in a god is silly at best, and in some cases is evidence of insanity. But I know better than to think I can stop someone from holding a belief I consider wrongheaded by attempting to oppress it.

A lot of people are confused when they hear me condemn the Waco atrocity. "Why do you care? They were just a bunch of religious kooks, after all." I tell them that the BD's lifestyle, in this case, is irrelevant. The bumper-sticker wisdom of, No one is free while others are oppressed, has some truth in it. If you can come after them for their beliefs, you can come after me for mine.

Even back in the day, when I didn't think I'd ever personally own a gun, I realized the futility of gun control, along with drug prohibition, anti-sodomy laws, and a whole mess of other things that the gov shouldn't be involved in. I mind my own business unless someone's person or property is being violated, and as long as you're doing the same, I'll stand by you when you're being attacked--whether I agree with you or not. Because that's what members of a free society are supposed to do, if they want to keep their freedom.

Too bad the anti's don't think that way.

February 21, 2004, 01:05 PM
Personal opinion:

Antis are divided into four groups:

1) Those that want control. This includes most fascists and socialists. These people realize that imposing their social agenda on the public requires that the public be mostly disarmed; otherwise there will be bloody and effective resistance. Many in this group tend to become leaders in the gun control movement, though gun control per se is not their driving force.

These people cannot be swayed from gun control unless you can change their socialist / fascist leanings as well.

2) Those that envy people who have guns. Not for their wealth, or even for their power, but for their self control. These are the antis who honestly believe that mere possession of a gun will cause people to become violent .... because that is what they would do. These are the people you hear about in the news, who get into fistfights at their kids sports games over a call the referee made or who run someone off the road and start a fight with them because they were flipped off in traffic. They have little self-control themselves, and what they have comes from fear of starting something they can't finish. They tend to be prone to substance abuse and addictions. They have an inborn desire to control others, because they cannot face a world where they would have to control themselves (as opposed to being controlled by laws and the threat of force).

These people need serious counseling before they can be swayed.

3) Those who view firearms as useful for hunting, law enforcement, the military and even self-defense, but who fear what others will do with them. These people have bought the "needs based" argument hook, line and sinker. They are usually afraid of some specific group of people (whites, blacks, minorities in general .....) and are willing to support gun control laws as long as they perceive those laws restricting that group more than they are. They are the fifth column among us, and are perhaps our most dangerous enemy .... because they masquerade as our friends. They are the ones hard-core antis aim at converting, with sound bites about how "no one needs an AK to hunt deer".

4) Those that fear firearms due to a lack of information or due to misinformation. They believe the lies regarding guns because that is what they have been taught. They often have little first hand knowledge of guns, and what they have was often gained in a manner that emphasized how dangerous / destructive guns were, and did not point out many uses for them other than hunting or the military. In their lives, they either have little need for guns, or they are so brainwashed that they cannot see the use for one even when they have the need.

These are the vast majority of fence sitters and antis. Thankfully, most are susceptible to reason. Most have so little exposure to firearms; they have almost no factual basis for their beliefs. Yet at their heart, most are thinking people. If you can gently correct their misperception on one single element of the gun debate, they will gradually come to question other parts of it.

February 21, 2004, 01:34 PM
Many more very good posts ... they value safety more than freedom Mark ...... I'd add the small rider to that ''their version/interpretation of safety. These are people who live in the nieve cloud 9 world where rescue by the cops is always there and a bit of ''it'll never happen to me'' syndrome too ... so why worry?! Plus - they don't give much thought to freedom ... real freedom ... simply because they have their 2 cars, pay check, Saturday golf, wide screen TV etc .. all seems rosy if their own personal little cocoon seems fine. Bust their bubble and things might seem way different.

Samurai ... some more good thoughts too and ....

Quaamik .. welcome to THR ... :) More good input.

The total content of this thread has grown to include some excellent material.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Motives of Those Who Would Disarm Us" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!