Do most antis have reasons for being anti?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Most "Anti's" are ignorant of firearms and ignorant of firearm laws. The very few that would even discuss it with me beyond a regurgitation of well worn canned boiler plate B.S. do not have any valid reasons. They have unfounded fears, wild ideas that a firearm will go off on its own at unexpected times. There is very little, if any, thought or reason to their discussion. I am sorry for them. They are the victims of ignorance.
 
Why do those who are anti-gun need a reason to be so? The beauty of this country is that we are allowed to hold different viewpoints and beliefs than our neighbors.

It is easy to defend the rights of those you agree with but the true measure of a man or woman is are they willing to defend the rights of those who they disagree with.

I do not feel the need to justify why I have guns anymore than I would expect someone else to have to justify why they don't. Every single example given in this thread for why antis fear guns can be flipped and used to explain why we have them. :scrutiny:


Simply put, think and believe as you will, but if said beliefs will affect me, you better damn well have some reasons.
 
Because that's not how the world works. If it didn't everyone would have their way which would be chaos. Thus you have logic and reason. I wish I didn't need a reason to be allowed to own and use a firearm. Sadly I do though.
 
Anti-gunners have the right to believe whatever the heck they want to. It's when they start pushing for legislation that tramples on everyone's rights that we have a problem.

I used to be scared of guns. After exposure I got over that but was still not all that comfortable until a few more years later. It was awhile till I got to the point of actually liking guns and wanted one. However, I was never for anti-gun laws to strip everyone else of their civil rights.

If you're scared of guns or just don't like them that's fine. Parachuting isn't for everyone either, I'm still scared to death of that too even after a couple times. But to be for laws taking away everyone else's right to own guns or parachute, well, that's a problem.
 
Why do those who are anti-gun need a reason to be so?

From where I sit, it's important for a person to hold beliefs because there are rational and consistent philosophical underpinnings to those beliefs.

People are certainly free to believe whatever they so like, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm going to give more weight to, say, a physicists explanation of how things work than the explanation offered up by a tribal shaman or the like.

Likewise, when it can be so clearly demonstrated via facts, figures, statistics, and my own personal experience, that guns do not cause an increase in violent crime, and that I am, indeed, safer with a defensive sidearm than not, then people who are anti-liberty are on the hook for proving why their claims are right despite the fact that reality differs so demonstrably from what they claim.

This lack of respect for people who are demonstrably wrong goes doubly so if the people making the claims are duplicitous in their behavior.
 
Because messing with other people's lives and livelihoods on a simple whim is despicable, that's why. It is the action of the unthinking oaf or the tyrant.

I could apply the same qualifications to religious believes yet they are used to mess with people's lives and livelihoods more often than gun rights issues.

Because that's not how the world works. If it didn't everyone would have their way which would be chaos. Thus you have logic and reason. I wish I didn't need a reason to be allowed to own and use a firearm. Sadly I do though.

Sadily this is exactly how the world works. Even if you use logic and reason 99% of people do not understand it, use it or apply it properly. Most of the time decisions are made using everything but logic.
 
Last edited:
I do apply the same qualifications to religious believes yet they are used to mess with people'e lives and livelihoods more often than gun rights issues.

I was unaware that this forum was dedicated to discussing issues pertaining to religion and faith.
 
It's not Justin but that does not mean it cannot be bought up to prove a point . Why hold those who have anti gun sentiments to a higher standard than others. Everything is relative. We as the shooting community need to step out of the box we put overselves in and try to understand that others are entitled to their beliefs as much as we are entitled to ours.
 
Why hold those who have anti gun sentiments to a higher standard than others.

I don't hold them to any standard higher than the one to which I hold myself.

Everything is relative.

Sure.

We as the shooting community need to step out of the box we put overselves in and try to understand that others are entitled to their beliefs as much as we are entitled to ours.

People are entitled to believe whatever cockamamie notion pops into their head. That doesn't automatically make such a belief right, worth consideration, or equal in weight to a notion that is built on a foundation of logic and internal consistency.
 
It is easy to defend the rights of those you agree with but the true measure of a man or woman is are they willing to defend the rights of those who they disagree with.
Anyone has the right to be a moron.

And I have the right to CALL them a moron.
 
Ah, you are free to disagree
you are NOT free to force your opinion on me, or my way of life.

Doing that may result in my explaining to you where your freedom ends.
 
"We as the shooting community need to step out of the box we put overselves in and try to understand that others are entitled to their beliefs as much as we are entitled to ours."

The right to an opinion creates no validity for that opinion. That one has the right to hold some opinion does not at all mean that it's worth listening to. "Stupid is as stupid opines." :D

And so I'll stay in my box, thank you. :D:D:D
 
Opinion -vs- Authority

We as the shooting community need to step out of the box we put overselves in and try to understand that others are entitled to their beliefs as much as we are entitled to ours.
Believe what you like. Have any opinion you like.

I have some opinions I'm pretty sure you'd think are nuts. That's fine. We won't be discussing those.

However, if I discovered one day that, because of your opinion, you were attempting to exert some kind of coercive authority over the exercise of my freedoms, I would seriously be in your face.

Having an opinion does not entitle one to enforce that point of view or its constraints on others.

You wanna hate my guns? Not much I can do about that. You are certainly entitled to any delusions, phobias, or obsessions that you feel are necessary to living your life. You are not entitled to visit them on me and my life.

A person who is rabidly irrational about weapons can have all the reasons he wants for his opinions and beliefs, but expecting me to accept or endorse or accept as valid in any degree the personal motivations that drive that irrationality is simply a non-starter.

In fact, given the prima facie irrationality of anti-gun attitudes and arguments, why on earth would I expend any effort at all attempting to understand the fundamentally flawed beliefs that drive them?

 
In fact, given the prima facie irrationality of anti-gun attitudes and arguments, why on earth would I expend any effort at all attempting to understand the fundamentally flawed beliefs that drive them?

Primarily as a way to counter their arguments and defuse their ability to drive public policy.

Secondarily, well, some people enjoy engaging in activities of mockery, parody and satire, though, given the antics of some of the anti-liberty advocates out there, satirizing them would prove to be quite the challenge.
 
Well, Alright Then

In fact, given the prima facie irrationality of anti-gun attitudes and arguments, why on earth would I expend any effort at all attempting to understand the fundamentally flawed beliefs that drive them?

Primarily as a way to counter their arguments and defuse their ability to drive public policy.

Secondarily, well, some people enjoy engaging in activities of mockery, parody and satire, though, given the antics of some of the anti-liberty advocates out there, satirizing them would prove to be quite the challenge.

Well, okay, fair point.

My context was more along lines of "understanding for empathy" or perhaps "understanding for conciliation."

Understanding for better engagement? Of course, yes.

I apologize for my clumsy wording.

 
From a conversation at work yesterday,
I was really anti-gun until about a year after I got married (To a gentleman that works as a defense contractor.) After a year I finally gave in and went to the range, and I've been shooting ever since!
That is the reason that you figure out why people are anti-gun.
 
Okay...Here's my tuppence on the question.

I don't mind if another man doersn't care for chocolate ice cream. His choice...whatever his reasons...and not my place to question it. I'm not about to change his viewpoint by any argument...reasoned and logical or otherwise. My only chance is by taking him to shoot. If his stance isn't based on irrational fear, I might have a shot at changing his mind at least enough to admit that guns aren't so bad after all.

(No pun intended, of course.)

I do mind when the same man would actively or passively work to deny me a bowl of chocolate ice cream simply because he doesn't like it. At that point, I do have a dog in the fight.

Not all people who don't want to have anything to do with guns are activists. Many state their aversion, but add that they don't have a problem with me and mine. It's the ones who challence my choice to own/carry/use firearms that I have a problem with. The busybodies who insist on imposing their beliefs on me...whether it's religion, politics, guns...or my preferred flavor of ice cream.
 
Like most folks with passionately held beliefs, antigun activists usually have good reasons for their opinions. Sarah Brady, for instance, had her family nearly destroyed one day because a crazy guy got a gun. I don't begrudge her that belief. She earned it.

My sister doesn't like guns. In the first few years of her marriage her husband came close to shooting her accidentally on more than one occasion. God bless him, he's an idiot. Since she loves him, she focuses her disdain on guns. Again, she is allowed her opinion.

I don't blame the antigun crowd. I do blame the lawmakers and judges for their cultivated Constitutional illiteracy.
 
This is America, and everyone has the right to believe anything they want to believe. I believe everyone should be required to wear purple beanies, forced to if necessary. When I try to act on my beliefs, I violate your right to dress the way you choose. I become a criminal when I violate your rights. I see a huge difference between the right to believe, and forcing my belief on others.


P.S. Sara Brady is a commie. She was rabidly anti-gun before the shooting of her husband.
 
Moat antis do, in fact, have a reason for being anti. You can't blame people for things they don't know.

What you see here on thehighroad.org is simply a relatively small, censored, well manicured portion of the gun owning population.

For every person on this site that's a "good gun owner" you've got a dozen morons who haven't the slightest clue about why firing at road signs from a pickup truck is a bad idea, paranoid nuts mulling over conspiracy theories, etc. etc.

Gun owners have only themselves to blame for much of the bad press.
 
or every person on this site that's a "good gun owner" you've got a dozen morons who haven't the slightest clue about why firing at road signs from a pickup truck is a bad idea, paranoid nuts mulling over conspiracy theories, etc. etc.

Source of the above statement please.

NukemJim
 
THE DARK KNIGHT said:
For every person on this site that's a "good gun owner" you've got a dozen morons who haven't the slightest clue about why firing at road signs from a pickup truck is a bad idea, paranoid nuts mulling over conspiracy theories, etc. etc.

Gun owners have only themselves to blame for much of the bad press.

What a broad-brushed statement. I too would like to know its source. Certainly there's bad apples in every group, but if gun owners were that ... "moronic" life in this country would be far bloodier than it already is. Most gun owners are perfectly decent people.
As for gunowners having "only themselves to blame" that discounts the many lies and nonsensical drivel the mainstream media push on society about guns all the time.
Blame the gunowner only when the owner does something foolish as an individual, all else can be found at a different source.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top