Has an anti ever visited the board?

I just joined this site. I used to go to The Firearms Forum (TFF), but got kicked out because they thought that's what I was. They never seemed to differentiate the right to bear arms from other issues. I was always of the opinion if a man broke the law and or bothered other people he should be punished. If a man doesn't break the law or bother anyone then why bother him. They were a very christian group, which in itself is fine as I was raised Catholic, but when they accuse me of being anti-american because I would say things like how the constitution guarantees rights to everyone, not just "Bible Belt" Christians as most of them were, I always answered. And I always gave reasons. They just threw the bible and said "Well according to the bible...Bla bla bla..." That's fine and all, but when I'm talking about the United States of America, I'm talking about the United States of American. Not a religion. Our country, while mostly Christian, was founded on religion, political, and verbal freedoms. Our country wasn't just found as a place for Christians only. Muslims, Christians, Blacks, Asians, Whites, homosexuals, heterosexuals, Hindus, Jews all have the same equal rights in our land.

Needless to say when the conversations got heated and they resorted to calling me names and started to tell me how terrible I was and how awful other religions and creeds were. I simply stated that they ran out of reasonable arguments and resorted to liberal tactics such as name calling that's when I got kicked out. I guess the truth hurts.

I love my country and I love the reasons for which it was found. But don't ever dare call me a traitor, and whatever other names you can find, when you propose that we use draconian measures against the minority as I argue against it. I will simply prove you wrong. The only person's feeling you will hurt will be your own.

"All men are created equal" is a statement whose meaning is long lost ammong the members of TFF.

Sorry for my rant. I love my guns, wish I had more.

Let's try it again, before this thread is closed.

GMFWoodchuck: Your post is another example of the kind of "thread drft" that can end up getting a topic shut down. It's essentially a rant, and it's a rant opinion-based. Further, it's about another site, and thus irrelevant to discussions at THR. See the sticky for posting guidelines here.

Thread drift happens when posters veer too far away from the subject of the opening posts. In this thread, Carl posited his query. It was expanded upon and responded to. But, eventually, "someone" reshaped the discussion by posting his personal reaction to his own experiences in posting known anti positions.

THR removed political discussions--i.e., pure politics--some time ago, as the general quality of said discussions deteriorated into name-calling. Recently, in an attempt to better serve the needs for education about political and ideological anti-RKBA issues, we've had some moderators tolerate those discussions. I hope that can continue--but naive posters of known antigun positions (such as "rewriting the 2nd Amendment") should not necessarily demand respect. Civility, yes--respect, no.

Jim H.

You might say that I am an anti due to my belief that there is no reason for one to own certain classes of firearms and my disenchantment with the NRA. Logic tells me that certain existing gun laws have the same validity as those concerning alcohol and drugs. It appalls me when I see people describe a person’s view on an issue as pure BS rather than enter into a Socratic discussion to clarify there opposing positions. Being a life long supporter of the Second Amendment life experience teaches me that logic and common sense must be used in its application in a society that adheres to the Rule Of Law. I have always opposed any law or regulation that is designed only to appease the sensibilities of just one element of society that is detrimental to the rights and freedom others and always will.

That being said I find an abundance of exceptionally valuable information available on these forums but also expect less than High Road attacks for what I have posted. It has happened before and I know it will happen again.

WCW

Hi WCW! Glad you're back! Hope all is well, now.

None of use here have (or should have) a problem debating your opinions in a gentlemanly fashion. And if some do have such a problem, there are those of us that will attempt to chastise them for poor behavior. The Moderators are very vigalent here and if you feel you are being ill used, please click the little red triangle on the left to report the post that assaults you. Rest assured, if you complaint is valid, it will be dealt with firmly.

Having said all that, I look forward to engaging you in civil discourse! We seem to have MUCH to discuss!

-Sam

JFH if you saw the very first post you would see that I'm still on topic. I stated that I have been accused of being exactly what you guys are complaining about. People showing up just for the stake of arguing. However, being on topic still, I stated that even though I may appear "liberal" I still am a pro-gun person.

JFH, try to keep on topic. There is no need for needless drifting.

JFH if you saw the very first post you would see that I'm still on topic.

Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. However, we have a strict policy against bashing (or much discussing, really) other sites, discussing politics, or discussing religion.

I understand what you're trying to say, but jfh is right to warn you off of certain paths.

Welcome to THR.
-Sam

Jim, I honestly don't know what you're talking about as far as being prototypical. If you wanted me to name names and cite every instance of low-brow behaviour directed toward me, I'm not going there in this thread because it doesn't seem very dignified. You'll just have to take my word for it.

To the other fella, thanks for calling me "incredible". Just made my day.

My point was that we should all try to be gentlemen when confronted with an opinion opposite our own. People complain about political correctness and then come here and enforce their very own warped version of it.

Jim (jfh) has this correct, and succinctly so, in post #71.

The only foundational, and inviolate, premises of a RKBA-forum must be:
1) that all persons have an inherent right to self-defense;
2) that the right to self-defense existed prior to the ratification of the (U.S.) Constitution,
3) that the exercise of the right to self-defense includes the use of a firearm, and
4) that pursuant to the Constitution, such right shall not be infringed.

Without those agreed-upon premises, THR may as well be included among many of the already-existing chatter-blather-forums, which break down when the fever goes 'round. It is the reason the forum is so vulnerable, during election time. Perhaps this should be included in the terms of agreement, prior to obtaining membership.

I see the value of practicing advocacy skills, which is, perhaps, the main reason anti's are tolerated here. Those who don't 'get it', merely because of gun-issue-ignorance, should be given access to the proper literature. A great deal of time and effort, however, is wasted, having to justify the raison-de-etre, periodically and in perpetuity, merely to indulge those who don't want to 'get it'.

Civility is preferred. And the fourth premise, unfortunately, is aspirational, because there already are 'infringements' that we've accepted in exercising the aforementioned rights. But if you disagree with the first three premises, you have no business being here.

Fine, whatever my apologies....

I'm not sure why can not explain experiences directly related to the topic. But I guess I'm not supposed to, so I won't. So I'll just shut up and not add any further relaveant info. And instead, I will read what others have written chatising what they themselves are doing.

One further point. Why have a section called social situations if we can not dicuss them? Don't answer me, answer yourselves, as I'm not coming back to this thread anymore. I don't really care.

Bye now. I'll be in the reloading section if you need me.

Fine, whatever my apologies....

Click to expand...

Oh, no need to apologize! You're not offending anyone. We just wanted to make sure you were aware of the guidelines for contributing here. It isn't a wide-open, anything goes kind of place. Directed, focused, on topic conversation with certain "no fly zones."

I'm not sure why can not explain experiences directly related to the topic. But I guess I'm not supposed to, so I won't. So I'll just shut up and not add any further relevant info. And instead, I will read what others have written chastising what they themselves are doing.

Click to expand...

Don't stress about it! You'll get the hang of it if you stick around for long.

In the meantime, I'll stick with the reloading section.

Click to expand...

Great choice and a great forum! Also a safe vantage from which to observe the culture here before jumping in and possibly getting yourself all ruffled up in an unnecessary dust-up with the Mods who are diligent in enforcing the forum rules.

Best to you, and again, welcome!

-Sam

Forums have a group culture. There are dominate individuals who seem to set the tone, but basically owner(s) of the forum and their delegated surrogates (moderators) decide what issues are acceptable on a forum.

I have noticed on one forum in particular, the acceptable issues are those that support the financial interests of the forum owner.

It is always interesting to watch the ebb and flow of discussions, but if you post a view contrary to the culture of the particular forum, and too strongly defend it, it won’t be long before you are banished.

Oh, and as for those who claim we are off-topic, the tone of this forum is directly relevant to whether anti-gunners would come to this site. My point is that if you are routinely nasty to other gun people, anti-gunners are not likely to post their opposing views here after witnessing such demonization.

What that means is, you just lost a chance to convert one.

Discouraging a diversity of thought can only lead to intellectual incest. If you want to come to a public place that strokes your ego as your beliefs are always continually reinforced, that's great. The 12 of you can all have one big circle jerk when there's no one else left.

As far as RKBA, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy has run amok at THR, with McCarthy-istic accusations flying at mild-mannered pro-gun people. So imagine how an anti-gunner would not want an uphill battle here because they:

1) don't perceive Obama as the AntiChrist (since he hasn't done one thing so far to curtail firearms freedoms)
2) aren't a Libertarian or conservative Republican (and are therefore traitors)
3) can see that the NRA has some flaws (as well as being part of the Republican machine)
4) aren't necessarily issue voters who see everything as black or white
5) do not want to get into a pointless slanging match.

Well, since the thread veer here is probably irretrievably past the 'the line,' I hope the moderators will bear with us 'older' members in our attempt to engage new members on our site's rules, guidelines, and culture.

working backwards: slamfire1 has it exactly right in his analysis--broadly stated. We don't need to go further into that discussion now. Sam1911 has succinctly described that culture as it applies to THR--"It isn't a wide-open, anything goes kind of place. Directed, focused, on topic conversation with certain 'no fly zones.'" WGBWoodchuck; One can have those discussions--provided they don't trip into one of the rules. Here, that was a rant about another site. Rants are tolerated, sometimes, but other-site discussions are not. Mr.Whimsy: No, I don't expect anecdotal listings; it is the implicit assumption(s) you make that lead to the inappropriate discussions. WCW: Sorting out the culture of a given forum is confusing, even with explicit rules. Here, you're running up against a generalized impatience with discussions done already, many times, and some of us would prefer you get educated about why a Socratic dialogue about the nature of firearms classification is tedious.

Given the posts done in the last ten hours, it's obvious none of you have been banned. Good luck in adapting to our site.

Jim H.

People seldom fit well into labels when addressed as individuals. The Anti label may have some usefulness when referring to individuals whom have chosen to actively oppose RKBA consistently. Other than that it is a device to relieve the short sighted of any responsibility to respect their individual opinions and apply reasonable debate and persuasion. This thread has THR members telling us they know all the traits arguments and even motivations of the "Anti". Another feels free to call them Drama Queens.

I'm sure that a lot of the steam behind both sides comes from the perception that we are engaged in "combat" with a malignant foe. I would implore that if you find yourself falling into this perception, consider it might be a good day to back away from the keyboard and get some sunshine.

Like it or not we will be judged by how we treat those that disagree with us. Converts are not made by disrespectful, dismissive behavior and simplistic labels and naming is seldom an accurate portrayal of truth.

1) don't perceive Obama as the AntiChrist (since he hasn't done one thing so far to curtail firearms freedoms)
2) aren't a Libertarian or conservative Republican (and are therefore traitors)
3) can see that the NRA has some flaws (as well as being part of the Republican machine)
4) aren't necessarily issue voters who see everything as black or white
5) do not want to get into a pointless slanging match.

Click to expand...

Mr. Whimsy... I agree with your five points. But I DISAGREE with your opinion of The High Road members. I've found most folks here passionate in making their own points, but by internet standards, pretty respectful of opposing views. If you hold my political views (which seem to be a lot like yours) you should expect some spirited discussion. If not why come here? And if some of the moderators seem a little like a "Thought Police" that's OK. He who pays the fiddler calls the tune.

And for pure apolitical advice on the care and feeding of your firearms, there's no better place to be.

You might say that I am an anti due to my belief that there is no reason for one to own certain classes of firearms and my disenchantment with the NRA.

Click to expand...

WHAT "classes of weapons"?

Have you decided merely that YOU shouldn't own them, or that the government should prevent ME from owning them?

I'm neither gay nor religious because neither of those things appeals to me. I don't have the SLIGHTEST desire to have the government stop YOU from being gay or religious.

Do you see a difference between the two attitudes?

That's why there's so MUCH animosity toward anti-gunners, especially the Quislings of AHSA. They advocate DIRECT ATTACKS on OTHER people's civil rights and liberties. They don't just think that I shouldn't own an AR15 or carry concealed. They think that a man with a government paycheck and a gun should KILL me if I refuse to stop doing those things.

There's no more reason for me to be friendly to such people than there is for me to be friendly to somebody who says that I should have my head sawed off with a bread knife if I won't join his religion. They mean me real HARM.

4) aren't necessarily issue voters who see everything as black or white

Click to expand...

You're Black and the candidate wants to reinstate Jim Crow. Where's the gray?

You're gay and the candidate wants to enact anti-sodomy laws. Where's the gray?

You're a Jew and the candidate denies the Holocaust. Where's the gray?

Yes, there ARE "black & white" issues with no shades of gray. If you want to take MY rights away, I've got no use for and certainly won't vote for you. If you're actively working to take my rights away, you're no friend of mine and I won't pretend otherwise. You mean me HARM and you're my ENEMY.

Oh, and as for those who claim we are off-topic, the tone of this forum is directly relevant to whether anti-gunners would come to this site.

Click to expand...

I'm confused by this. There were some recent comments about off-topic posting, bu they had to do with discussions of other forums, politics, and religion.

And somehow I don't think an anti-gunner is going to review the purpose and stated goals of this forum and decide to post anyway, but then be dissuaded because our "tone" is not favorable. To post even a "moderate" statement that firearm rights should be curtailed and then express dismay or astonishment that your positions are rebuffed, quite forcefully, deserves a resounding, "well, DUH!" THR would be THE crucible, THE test, for one wishing to debate from the statist, prohibitionist viewpoint. There is unlikely to exist a more articulate, educated, and well-grounded bunch of absolutist RKBA advocates anywhere. By all means, bring your very best arguments for infringements and "compromise," but buckle up -- it's going to be a bumpy ride.

My point is that if you are routinely nasty to other gun people, anti-gunners are not likely to post their opposing views here after witnessing such demonization.

Click to expand...

Somewhere I must have missed the notice inviting anti-gunners to post here. Is "a forum for posting anti-gun perspectives" in our charter somewhere? I've got to read that thing again...

What that means is, you just lost a chance to convert one.

Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe not. Most die-hard anti-gunners aren't open to conversion. When logic fails to support their argument, there's always emotion and vitriol -- which seems to sustain them adequately.

Folks who are truly open minded and find their way here would probably be content to read and evaluate the points made by "pro-gun" contributors here and decide for themselves whether their arguments have merit. Launching a campaign of anti-gun propaganda just to see if it will get smacked down does not indicate an open mind, ripe for conversion. Reading, thinking, trying to see from the other perspective and then asking reasonable questions -- yeah, that's a conversion candidate.

Discouraging a diversity of thought can only lead to intellectual incest. If you want to come to a public place that strokes your ego as your beliefs are always continually reinforced, that's great. The 12 of you can all have one big circle jerk when there's no one else left.

Click to expand...

Sorry to be a prude, but I don't really appreciate the obscene reference.

"Discouraging diversity of thought" is kind of like the old populist "Open your mind" slogan. What does that mean, exactly? This is a site directed towards the responsible exercise of, and preservation of, a VERY threatened right. How could anyone expect such a sight to encourage "diversity" of thought regarding those issues? The only definition of such "diversity" would be beliefs and statements CONTRARY to the stated goals of the group. Would you ask a forum dedicated to hunting to encourage members to hold and promote "animal rights" viewpoints? Or one chartered to further the global spread of Marxism to encourage the propigation of Capitalist agendas? No, of course not. That would be silly.

The very purpose of an issue advocacy forum is to reinforce and further that issue. A certain amount of philosophical variation among members is expected, as no two people are identical, but participants who hold views that cross beyond the collective values of the group are going to find a chilly reception. That's life. Perhaps you feel that you are chafing under the oppression of these boundaries. Sorry you feel that way, but they are what the membership makes them. If they are untenable to you, there's always AHSA.

So imagine how an anti-gunner would not want an uphill battle here because they:

1) don't perceive Obama as the AntiChrist (since he hasn't done one thing so far to curtail firearms freedoms)

Click to expand...

Since he's been in his current office. Read his history and his position statements, and you'll know a skunk by the smell.

2) aren't a Libertarian or conservative Republican (and are therefore traitors)

Click to expand...

Again, one of the social mores of the site. It isn't political, though. Strictly issue driven.

3) can see that the NRA has some flaws (as well as being part of the Republican machine)

Click to expand...

Discussed to death. Every single one of us seems to recognize SOME flaws in the NRA. Still, the 800 lb gorilla I'm glad is on our side.

4) aren't necessarily issue voters who see everything as black or white

Click to expand...

Again, not political. There is ONE issue here. If it isn't black and white, discuss it until you understand it better. Then make your choice. We won't be in the voting booth with you.

5) do not want to get into a pointless slanging match.

Click to expand...

I have no clue what a "slanging match" is, and can't figure it out from the context, so you'll have to help me out with that one.

I see your angst over the culture of this site, here and in other posts, but I can't imagine how to help. There's no law that says you have to like what the members here stand for or how they argue their positions.

Personally, I find THR to be the greatest web community available. If that isn't the case for you -- or for antis who happen by -- that is disappointing. But, the site is what we make it. Not everyone in the world is destined to get along.

-Sam

Deanimator,

I can freely admit that I don't need Ma Duece set up in my garage, and that if I had her there would be a trade off of positive and negative effects.

I can also freely state that if the citizens "well regulated militia" idea from the founding fathers would have any merit at all then it would need Ma AND artillery.

Another possible debate is "right" vs. "privilege" or if rights and or privileges carry reciprocal responsibilities. There is no real harm in voicing our viewpoints, including those regarding governmental balancing of the often conflicting need to preserve personal liberty vs. preserving order and general safety.

I would suggest there is room for more than 2 viewpoints (absolute pro or absolute anti) and listening to them is not inherently harmful. Yes, Ruby Ridge and Waco did happen, and as with all extreme events we are tempted to extreme reaction. Reason is the first casualty of extremity. I hope that dialogue is still possible and productive.

What that means is, you just lost a chance to convert one.

Click to expand...

You're no more going to convert a "movement" anti-gunner, especially the sort of AHSA shills who come here, than you were to convert Abu Musab al Zarqawi to Judaism. You don't make that level of commitment to that level of dishonesty and irrationality without yourself being profoundly dishonest and irrational.

The ones who get "converted" (more like educated) are the lurkers and casual observers. I've seen it time after time in usenet. Prove step by step that the antis, ESPECIALLY the shills from AHSA are con men, liars and in many instances, racists, anti-Semites, misogynists and homophobes and they pick the right side.

Nobody ever "converted" a kamikaze by conceding that hakko ichiu might actually be right.

Nobody ever "converted" a kamikaze by conceding that hakko ichiu might actually be right.

Click to expand...

OMG! That was poetry!

-Sam

I can freely admit that I don't need Ma Duece set up in my garage, and that if I had her there would be a trade off of positive and negative effects.

Click to expand...

YOU don't need or I don't need? And if not an M2, why an M16... or an AR15? And if not me, what are you willing to have the government do to make sure "not me"?

Again, if I'm doing something that's not harming you and you're willing to see ME harmed to prevent it, WHY should I be "friendly" to you?

Mr Whimsy said:

My point was that we should all try to be gentlemen when confronted with an opinion opposite our own.

Click to expand...

Interesting that you say that then proceed to start a thread in Legal with dishonesty in your very first post.

What is the gentleman-like response to lies?

By the way, you didn't post that as "opinion". You posted it as fact, which isn't true.

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=507713

How much does AHSA pay you guys anyway? Just curious.

If I've been out of control, slap me, I get carried away occassionly, :O

Deanimator,

Yes, you are right;

YOU need automatic weapons, the heavier the better. YOU have the ability to identify the motivations and characteristics of anyone who disagrees with you without hearing them out because they are con-men, and YOU don't have to be "friendly" to anyone. You've got the weapons remember?

BTW, feel free to characterize entire categories of people in any extreme fashion that suits including Kamakazies. They really are after you you know.