JImbothefiveth
Member
People are allowed to have unconstitutional opinions. I'ts in the constitution.
Are Antis Enemies
- Thread starter MagnumDweeb
- Start date
- Status
DHJenkins
Member
You guys get as worked up as you want - I'm sure it'll solve alot.
Me, I'll just vote and try to inform people.
Me, I'll just vote and try to inform people.
Vern Humphrey
Member
My response would be, "If you don't like it here, elbow-breath, go back wherever you camefrom."
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
May best advice:
Some are more indifferent than anti.
Confrontation is never a good opening tactic. In the gym say OK and invite him to join you for a soda. Find out his frame of reference.
Slow, calm, reasoned conversation is a good tool.
Might even see the opportunity to invite him to join you.
Never act like a knuckledragger.
If it doesnt work agree to disagree and continue to be a gentleman
Some are more indifferent than anti.
Confrontation is never a good opening tactic. In the gym say OK and invite him to join you for a soda. Find out his frame of reference.
Slow, calm, reasoned conversation is a good tool.
Might even see the opportunity to invite him to join you.
Never act like a knuckledragger.
If it doesnt work agree to disagree and continue to be a gentleman
SpecialKalltheway
Member
Enemy? yes.
With that being said I know that I can for a fact turn an enemy into an ally, so the having to destroy them or at very least separate everything from them does not work. We could have quickly "won" the war in Iraq had we just went in and killed and bombed everything, but it's not a victory if the survivors aren't happy about the out come as well. That just produces new generations of enemies.
We need to defeat the anti's and stop the reproduction of more, which takes a little more tact than pounding them down into the ground.
With that being said I know that I can for a fact turn an enemy into an ally, so the having to destroy them or at very least separate everything from them does not work. We could have quickly "won" the war in Iraq had we just went in and killed and bombed everything, but it's not a victory if the survivors aren't happy about the out come as well. That just produces new generations of enemies.
We need to defeat the anti's and stop the reproduction of more, which takes a little more tact than pounding them down into the ground.
When I meet up with someone who is anti-RKBA, I take it as an educational opportunity. The private college where I instruct full-time as a graduate professor of education provides me ample opportunities. Stereotypes don't help us, nor does name-calling. Facts help us. Common sense helps us. Sincere offers to help them better understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights helps us. Many folks are sincere in their opposition, it's just that their position is ill-informed. That is where I/we/THR come in. 
Geno
Geno
MagnumDweeb
Member
I'm glad there has been a diversity of opinion on the topic, and more gald that there are those who won't say that all are potential enemies. I believe they have a right to their opinions like those who believe in a different god or no god, or believe or don't believe in evolution, the trouble is that their beliefs threaten a varying range of fundamental aspects of our lives. I still hold out hope to convert, that's in part why I've became an NRA certicied pistol instructor, still some cannot be educated and will remain reinterpreters or outright traitors who will call for the end of the 2nd Amendment.
Keep the opinions coming, glad thre are those who hold out hope and compassion for the antis, but still the same I'm glad there ar those who understand they can be an enemy to be voted against and organized politicially against.
And yes I did try to talk with the individual very subtely, part of why I asked them about themselves and where they came from, to show a little interest in them before explaining why we were talking (I'm 24, there 62,49, 54, 47, year old I was talking to, I was the only young punk) about safety fundamentals and different calibers.
Keep the opinions coming, glad thre are those who hold out hope and compassion for the antis, but still the same I'm glad there ar those who understand they can be an enemy to be voted against and organized politicially against.
And yes I did try to talk with the individual very subtely, part of why I asked them about themselves and where they came from, to show a little interest in them before explaining why we were talking (I'm 24, there 62,49, 54, 47, year old I was talking to, I was the only young punk) about safety fundamentals and different calibers.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Avoiding the lumping as "enemies" of all those who have negative views about firearms as is the wisest course. Education and persuasion of those who are not among the hard-core anti-gunners helps our cause. Open hostility to a different viewpoint does us no good.
Example: I know of two people who queried of The Firing Line folks as to why we were nutzoidal about guns. Polite postings of reasons and rational views led to a willingness to go "shoot and learn". Time went on, and one of them started a pro-gun website. The other went on and became a TFL moderator who has a vauable firearms website.
Yes, we do have those who can be described quite honestly as enemies. But we need to be rational in separating them from the others...
Art
Example: I know of two people who queried of The Firing Line folks as to why we were nutzoidal about guns. Polite postings of reasons and rational views led to a willingness to go "shoot and learn". Time went on, and one of them started a pro-gun website. The other went on and became a TFL moderator who has a vauable firearms website.
Yes, we do have those who can be described quite honestly as enemies. But we need to be rational in separating them from the others...
Art
yokel
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
What's with all the hate on the Brady clique and VPC?
After all, they're just well-meaning folks with an opposing viewpoint who only want what's best for all of us.
How about persuing an opportunity to literally extend the olive branch of love and reconciliation?
After all, they're just well-meaning folks with an opposing viewpoint who only want what's best for all of us.
How about persuing an opportunity to literally extend the olive branch of love and reconciliation?
I'll say this:
If a person is informed and chooses to remain anti, they ARE an enemy.
If they are uninformed, they are an educational opportunity.
If they are simply apathetic on the issue but votes against RKBA via candidates, they ARE an enemy. Apathy IS an enemy as well.
At some point people will make a decision-- with some varying degree of passion. Those that choose deliberately to fall on one side of that line become the opposition, or enemy, to those on the other.
Whether that is "High Road" or not is irrelevent. Truth is dispassionate.
I'm not saying to go around CREATING enemies-- look for the educational opportunities. But I know the enemy when I see them. And I do not associate with them by choice.
-- John
If a person is informed and chooses to remain anti, they ARE an enemy.
If they are uninformed, they are an educational opportunity.
If they are simply apathetic on the issue but votes against RKBA via candidates, they ARE an enemy. Apathy IS an enemy as well.
At some point people will make a decision-- with some varying degree of passion. Those that choose deliberately to fall on one side of that line become the opposition, or enemy, to those on the other.
Whether that is "High Road" or not is irrelevent. Truth is dispassionate.
I'm not saying to go around CREATING enemies-- look for the educational opportunities. But I know the enemy when I see them. And I do not associate with them by choice.
-- John
MTMilitiaman
Member
Enemies? They sure as hell aren't friends. Yes, they are absolutely enemies. They are a subversive force seeking to erode the foundations of this country and of individual liberty itself. They continuously attempt to steal through any and all means available to them not only these pieces of metal and wood and plastic, but also that which means most to us--our freedom, our ability to defend ourselves and our families, and our ability to choose our own destiny. It is not just a harmless difference in opinion or policy. It is a direct, blatant, unmitigated attack on everything cherished by free human spirits. Gun control is a scourge on humanity like genocide and racism, and it is not only the duty of Americans but of mankind to eradicate it from the face of this planet. Humans will never be free until this happens. Antis are absolutely a most-hated enemy, and as they have dedicated their lives to the destruction of freedom, I have dedicated mine to supporting it by opposing them in everything they do.
That doesn't necessarily mean I wish violence on all of them. Some of them are just ignorant or naive, and just need to be educated. But some of them I do most certainly harbor vehement burning malice and contempt for.
That doesn't necessarily mean I wish violence on all of them. Some of them are just ignorant or naive, and just need to be educated. But some of them I do most certainly harbor vehement burning malice and contempt for.
Titan6
member
It is real simple.
The smart ones know what they are doing.
The dumb ones will talk about their "feelings"
Until/ unless you can get them to think there will be no progress. You can't reason with a feeling.
The smart ones know what they are doing.
The dumb ones will talk about their "feelings"
Until/ unless you can get them to think there will be no progress. You can't reason with a feeling.
Vern Humphrey
Member
And the anti described in this case was clearly a bigot. He actively dispised gun owners, injected himself aggressively into a conversation, and made bigoted remarks about the origins of the people he was talking to.
This isn't a guy you're going to convince with logic and reason.
rbernie
Contributing Member
I'm with JWarren.
As much as I like the notion of NOT being absolutist, sooner or later those folk that stand up with the forces that would remove rights from others HAVE to be viewed as opponents of those rights.
The dialogue to have is really about how to deal with that opposition - not whether or not we should be willing to call it opposition.
As much as I like the notion of NOT being absolutist, sooner or later those folk that stand up with the forces that would remove rights from others HAVE to be viewed as opponents of those rights.
The dialogue to have is really about how to deal with that opposition - not whether or not we should be willing to call it opposition.
Joe Demko
Member
Enemies? I don't need to use melodramatic terms like that to "embiggen" my life. Get a grip on yourselves.
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
A foe? An opponent? Certainly.
Fight the good fight, taking the high road or fight to win, no holds barred, smiling while doing so. It keeps your foe/opponent/enemy wondering.
It has been said that, "A good enemy is worthy of respect." It may very well be true. Am I (are we?) a good enemy? I hope so.
Some people are better left ignored. It irks them so.
Sam Adams
Member
I'll go with all of those who divide the antis into 2 main camps. I like to call those camps the "Vanguard of the Proletariat" and the "Useful Idiots," respectively.
The Vanguard IS your enemy. They know all about guns, they just don't want YOU to have any (or me, or anyone who is or may oppose them politically). I put all elected federal officials opposed to the RKBA in this catagory, along with newspaper and TV executives and many reporters.
Useful idiots are the majority. They generally know which end the bullets come from, and that there are a fair number of people killed/murdered each year by people using a gun for that purpose (though, of course, they'll say "killed by a gun" as if the gun loaded, aimed and fired itself). They have probably never fired a gun, or maybe "20 years ago in the Army." These people can generally be persuaded and educated, if you do things the right way. That means politeness counts, and range time is critical. Bring that person to the range, along with light-recoiling guns. Make sure that you teach them safety, and how the gun works, plus the sight picture. Make doubly sure that they have fun. They are NOT the enemy, just an ignorant enemy sympathizer UNTIL you get to them.
The Vanguard IS your enemy. They know all about guns, they just don't want YOU to have any (or me, or anyone who is or may oppose them politically). I put all elected federal officials opposed to the RKBA in this catagory, along with newspaper and TV executives and many reporters.
Useful idiots are the majority. They generally know which end the bullets come from, and that there are a fair number of people killed/murdered each year by people using a gun for that purpose (though, of course, they'll say "killed by a gun" as if the gun loaded, aimed and fired itself). They have probably never fired a gun, or maybe "20 years ago in the Army." These people can generally be persuaded and educated, if you do things the right way. That means politeness counts, and range time is critical. Bring that person to the range, along with light-recoiling guns. Make sure that you teach them safety, and how the gun works, plus the sight picture. Make doubly sure that they have fun. They are NOT the enemy, just an ignorant enemy sympathizer UNTIL you get to them.
MTMilitiaman
Member
To expound on what appears to be a reoccurring theme in this topic, this is not just a difference of opinion guaranteed to us at birth by a higher power and protected by the Bill of Rights.
If you don't like guns and just go about your daily life without them while taking no action to strip such freedom of choice from others, you are not an "anti," and I wish the best of luck to you, even if I disagree with you.
An anti is one who is actively attempts to force their opinion on others by denying them the right to choose. They are your enemy. They are my enemy. They are the enemy of all those who hold sacred the belief that every human on this planet has, if nothing else, the right to choose.
A complete lack of gun control in this country does not force anyone to own a gun, and indeed, I oppose all such measures on the same grounds that I oppose measures designed to prevent anyone from owning a gun. Conversely, as gun control becomes more prevalent in a society, increasing numbers of the population are denied this fundamental human right.
Being an anti is not dependent on whether or not you like or own guns. Being an anti is really more about your support of gun control. If you're a Fudd content to own a hunting rifle while frowning on and opposing the right of others to own handguns or semi-automatic rifles, you're an anti, and you're my enemy. On the same token, if you very much dislike guns and refuse to own or associate with them, but oppose any steps taken to prevent others from choosing for themselves regarding the issue, you're not an anti or an enemy and are fully within the rights expressed in the Constitution.
If you don't like guns and just go about your daily life without them while taking no action to strip such freedom of choice from others, you are not an "anti," and I wish the best of luck to you, even if I disagree with you.
An anti is one who is actively attempts to force their opinion on others by denying them the right to choose. They are your enemy. They are my enemy. They are the enemy of all those who hold sacred the belief that every human on this planet has, if nothing else, the right to choose.
A complete lack of gun control in this country does not force anyone to own a gun, and indeed, I oppose all such measures on the same grounds that I oppose measures designed to prevent anyone from owning a gun. Conversely, as gun control becomes more prevalent in a society, increasing numbers of the population are denied this fundamental human right.
Being an anti is not dependent on whether or not you like or own guns. Being an anti is really more about your support of gun control. If you're a Fudd content to own a hunting rifle while frowning on and opposing the right of others to own handguns or semi-automatic rifles, you're an anti, and you're my enemy. On the same token, if you very much dislike guns and refuse to own or associate with them, but oppose any steps taken to prevent others from choosing for themselves regarding the issue, you're not an anti or an enemy and are fully within the rights expressed in the Constitution.
Telumehtar
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 58
Quite frankly, I think the term "enemy" is from a semantic point of view about the worst word you could possibly use.
"Enemy" brings up the image of a person who must be destroyed, and utterly defeated. Enemies are to be hated, and not to be reasoned with. And ultimately the simplistic nature in which "enemy" is getting tossed around in this conversation, belies the real issue which requires a vocabulary much more nuanced to talk about the degrees of various people and their views.
Would you consider someone who believed you have a right to defend yourself an enemy?
Would you still hold the same view of the above person, if that same person stated that learning martial arts is an acceptable manner in which to defend yourself but not firearms?
Or to go to the other extreme, from a purist liberty approach, one might argue that anyone should be allowed to own nuclear or biological weapons. So long as they don't use it to infringe on other's rights.
The fact of the matter is there is a level of degree to the argument of an armed society, and different people will draw the line in the sand at different points.
I would wager most of society finds Martial arts, stun guns, and pepper spray to be acceptable methods of Self defense (even us gunnies who may scoff at such weapons, believe that if the person chooses they should be allowed to pick from such a weak set of weapons)
For most folks on this forum, I would wager being allowed to own pistols, rifles, and maybe even machine guns is the appropriate place to draw the line.
But if you upped the stakes, say allowing people to own tanks, Surface to Air missiles, Apache gunships, or fighter jets, I'd wager a portion of the population on these forums would believe that is going too far.
Take it up another notch, should a private citizen be allowed to own and operate a carrier group with mercenaries equivilent in training to our armed forces? That notch will probably see another chunk of population drop off in support.
And ultimately should a private citizen be allowed to own a weapon that could indescriminately kill millions of people? Nukes etc? I'd be real surprised if anyone could with sanity argue this would be an acceptable state of liberty to allow, because ultimately while from a purist philosophical point, one might state that anyone should be allowed to do anything so long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights, the reality is, private possession of such a weapon could by it's mere presence infringe on other's rights. And if you don't believe that the mere presence of these weapons is not in and of itself a weapon, I'd refer to go look at the cold war, and the results M.A.D.
So you see there is a large part of this argument that is a matter of degree. I personally wouldn't have an issue with someone owning a tank or apache, but I'd be pretty hesitant to allow a private individual the ability to operate a full military force without any sort of control.
For antis, either due to ignorance or willfulness, they see guns as the line in the sand. They feel that having a gun is allowing too much power to be vested in one person. I respectfully disagree, and I will vote and argue to counter their view.
But ultimately, if enough voters passed an amendment undoing the 2nd, I'd have to give serious consideration to just simply living with the new rule. Essentially at that point they would've won, fairly and in accordance with our constitution.
What irks me now, is that the current gun laws are slipped in, or forced through without going through the proper channels, and our courts being packed a certain way refuse to strike them down in accordance with the 2nd amendment. I don't mind losing in the arena of ideas and politics if it's a fair fight. Problem is the leaders of the Anti-gun movement don't play fair.
"Enemy" brings up the image of a person who must be destroyed, and utterly defeated. Enemies are to be hated, and not to be reasoned with. And ultimately the simplistic nature in which "enemy" is getting tossed around in this conversation, belies the real issue which requires a vocabulary much more nuanced to talk about the degrees of various people and their views.
Would you consider someone who believed you have a right to defend yourself an enemy?
Would you still hold the same view of the above person, if that same person stated that learning martial arts is an acceptable manner in which to defend yourself but not firearms?
Or to go to the other extreme, from a purist liberty approach, one might argue that anyone should be allowed to own nuclear or biological weapons. So long as they don't use it to infringe on other's rights.
The fact of the matter is there is a level of degree to the argument of an armed society, and different people will draw the line in the sand at different points.
I would wager most of society finds Martial arts, stun guns, and pepper spray to be acceptable methods of Self defense (even us gunnies who may scoff at such weapons, believe that if the person chooses they should be allowed to pick from such a weak set of weapons)
For most folks on this forum, I would wager being allowed to own pistols, rifles, and maybe even machine guns is the appropriate place to draw the line.
But if you upped the stakes, say allowing people to own tanks, Surface to Air missiles, Apache gunships, or fighter jets, I'd wager a portion of the population on these forums would believe that is going too far.
Take it up another notch, should a private citizen be allowed to own and operate a carrier group with mercenaries equivilent in training to our armed forces? That notch will probably see another chunk of population drop off in support.
And ultimately should a private citizen be allowed to own a weapon that could indescriminately kill millions of people? Nukes etc? I'd be real surprised if anyone could with sanity argue this would be an acceptable state of liberty to allow, because ultimately while from a purist philosophical point, one might state that anyone should be allowed to do anything so long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights, the reality is, private possession of such a weapon could by it's mere presence infringe on other's rights. And if you don't believe that the mere presence of these weapons is not in and of itself a weapon, I'd refer to go look at the cold war, and the results M.A.D.
So you see there is a large part of this argument that is a matter of degree. I personally wouldn't have an issue with someone owning a tank or apache, but I'd be pretty hesitant to allow a private individual the ability to operate a full military force without any sort of control.
For antis, either due to ignorance or willfulness, they see guns as the line in the sand. They feel that having a gun is allowing too much power to be vested in one person. I respectfully disagree, and I will vote and argue to counter their view.
But ultimately, if enough voters passed an amendment undoing the 2nd, I'd have to give serious consideration to just simply living with the new rule. Essentially at that point they would've won, fairly and in accordance with our constitution.
What irks me now, is that the current gun laws are slipped in, or forced through without going through the proper channels, and our courts being packed a certain way refuse to strike them down in accordance with the 2nd amendment. I don't mind losing in the arena of ideas and politics if it's a fair fight. Problem is the leaders of the Anti-gun movement don't play fair.
mljdeckard
Member
If I called everyone I know who doesn't take it as seriously as I do an anti-enemy, I wouldn't have any friends left at all.
MaterDei
Member
Yes.
It seems to me that people would naturally be inclined to protect and defend themselves. I think that people who are unwilling or unable to do so with the best means possible have been infected with some sort of abnormality.
I think of anti's as having a mental disorder. It should be obvious they got that disorder through the conditioning of brainwashing, and they seem prone to try to infect others like the bias reporting we very often seen in the press and on TV. If they were willing to quarantine themselves from us, then I would say they deserve pity, as they would be no threat to anyone but themselves. But the fact that they attempt to use the force of government against me to take away my right to defend myself then makes them my enemy.
I also think of it is a case of Darwin in action, cause when some sort of social breakdown occurs, as it inevitably will, they will have no means with which to defend themselves even if they suddenly are shocked into the realization that they are principally responsible for the safety of their dependents and themselves.
I think of anti's as having a mental disorder. It should be obvious they got that disorder through the conditioning of brainwashing, and they seem prone to try to infect others like the bias reporting we very often seen in the press and on TV. If they were willing to quarantine themselves from us, then I would say they deserve pity, as they would be no threat to anyone but themselves. But the fact that they attempt to use the force of government against me to take away my right to defend myself then makes them my enemy.
I also think of it is a case of Darwin in action, cause when some sort of social breakdown occurs, as it inevitably will, they will have no means with which to defend themselves even if they suddenly are shocked into the realization that they are principally responsible for the safety of their dependents and themselves.
- Status