1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What do you consider an "anti"?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by jlh26oo, Nov 16, 2008.


How would you classify

  1. if you don't support ALL gun rights, your as bad as the worst of them

    104 vote(s)
  2. "anti" is relative. It's more a continuum with gray area issues and extremists at both ends

    125 vote(s)
  3. if you are a N.R.A. member and support at least some R.K.B.A. you are not an "anti" period

    20 vote(s)
  1. jlh26oo

    jlh26oo New Member

    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).

  2. Blakenzy

    Blakenzy New Member

    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.
  3. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    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.
  4. LKB3rd

    LKB3rd New Member

    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.
  5. benEzra

    benEzra Moderator Emeritus

    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.
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2008
  6. 2nd 41

    2nd 41 New Member

    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.
  7. Roadwild17

    Roadwild17 New Member

    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.
  8. bdickens

    bdickens New Member

    I see it as a continuum because there are some people you can reach and some you can't.
  9. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Active Member

    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:
  10. Harve Curry

    Harve Curry New Member

    Old Fuff summed it up nicer then I could.
    It's about FREEDOM.
  11. 22-rimfire

    22-rimfire New Member

    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.
  12. The Bushmaster

    The Bushmaster Active Member

    An "anti" is anyone that attempts to restrict me from owning and shooting any firearm I wish...
  13. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Active Member

    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..
  14. deadin

    deadin Active Member

    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:
  15. Aran

    Aran member

  16. Kevin108

    Kevin108 New Member

    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.
  17. Loomis

    Loomis member

    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".
  18. wacki

    wacki New Member

    A poem for partial anti's from Niemoller:

  19. AZ_Rebel

    AZ_Rebel New Member

    If someone does not fully support the 2nd Amendment they are an ANTI.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
  20. benEzra

    benEzra Moderator Emeritus

    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:


Share This Page