Do most antis have reasons for being anti?

[mr.trooper]

Humans construct reality by labeling things.

Labels are useful in the fact that they free up time - you don't have to THINK about every thing every time you encounter it. That is very useful in day to day life.

The down side is that most things are not that simple, and it confuses people when you don't fit the mold. That's why its so hard to have a simple conversation some times.

 

[LibShooter]

That's why it's our job to inform these people about the realities of gun ownership in the US.

We should try. It will do some good, but not a whole lot.

People don't often look at the facts and make up their minds. The usually make up their minds and then look for the facts.

 

[Deanimator]

When someone flat out tells you that they don't care about healthcare, jobs, the economy, taxes, education, foreign policy, alternative energy, and that they just care about the 3 G's - god guns gays - it often leads to the perception of that person being ignorant, selfish, reckless, and short sighted.

And there we have the anti-gun talking points.

• I'm an agnostic.
• I'm in favor of gay marriage.
• I'm not willing to compromise ANYTHING on guns.

The ONLY thing anti-gunners are willing to "compromise" is how QUICKLY the general public is disarmed totally.

 

[Nushif]

And there we have the anti-gun talking points.
I'm an agnostic.
I'm in favor of gay marriage.

I am honestly stunned how you equate those points to being an anti gunner ... where are you getting this?

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Uh, 'Scuse Me?

How do you ask that question?

He quoted what he's answering.

You're asking the wrong guy, "where are you getting this?"

Ask the guy he's quoting, the guy who said this:

When someone flat out tells you that they don't care about healthcare, jobs, the economy, taxes, education, foreign policy, alternative energy, and that they just care about the 3 G's - god guns gays - it often leads to the perception of that person being ignorant, selfish, reckless, and short sighted.

He's the one asserting mouth-breathing characteristics of pro-gunners.

 

[rellascout]

Deanimator,

I have a few questions.

Do you believe everyone who considers themselves part of the pro-gun shooting community believes the same thing that you do? You stated:

"I'm not willing to compromise ANYTHING on guns."

 

[Deanimator]

Do you believe everyone who considers themselves part of the pro-gun shooting community believes the same thing that you do? You stated:

What EXACTLY does that mean?

Does it include AHSA?

If so, does somebody who believes that the 1st Amendment ONLY protects the freedom of expression of White, male Christians "consider themselves part of the 'free speech' community"?

Should I take EITHER of them seriously?

My general philosophy is that I have no right to force Sarah Brady or Ernst Zundel to stop lying. At the same time, they have no right to force me either to believe their lies or to accord them one iota of respect. And I don't.

All men are created equal.

All ideas are NOT.

You have a broad right to speak as you see fit.

You have NO right to have what you say respected, OR to be respected for saying it.

 

[rellascout]

No meant it as a straight forward question. I will simplify it for you.

Does everyone who is pro-gun believe the same thing that you do?

"I'm not willing to compromise ANYTHING on guns."

 

[Deanimator]

Does everyone who is pro-gun believe the same thing that you do?

"Believe the same thing" about WHAT???

 

[Charleo0192]

"Believe the same thing" about WHAT???

The same as YOU. He's asking if you believe every other pro-gun person feels the same as YOU.

 

[Deanimator]

The same as YOU. He's asking if you believe every other pro-gun person feels the same as YOU.

If they're willing to "compromise" with people for whom "compromise" means "We get everything a little later, instead of all right now", I question whether they're actually "pro-gun".

Again, is somebody who thinks that the 1st Amendment gives ONLY White, male Christians the right to express themselves REALLY "pro-freedom of speech"?

AHSA called itself a "gun owners" group.
David Duke called the NAAWP a "civil rights" organization.
NAMBLA calls itself a "civil rights" organization.

Do I have some kind of duty to accept that at face value?

I may not be able to stop people from trying to con me.
I don't have to LET myself be conned.

 

[Charleo0192]

I think most of us, if not all, believe that everyone, not only white-male christians, have the right of freedom of speech.

As for the word "compromise", well, I'd like to think at its most basic meaning, means to come to an agreement where both sides come out positive to some extent. Essentially no side will completely lose as will none completely win.

 

[Deanimator]

I think most of us, if not all, believe that everyone, not only white-male christians, have the right of freedom of speech.

But that doesn't address my question.

If somebody believes that, are they REALLY "pro-freedom of speech"? Yes or no?

As for the word "compromise", well, I'd like to think at its most basic meaning, means to come to an agreement where both sides come out positive to some extent. Essentially no side will completely lose as will none completely win.

Can you name ANY well known gun control group whose goals could reasonably be described in that way? What do gun owners get out of what Brady, VPC and Cease Fire want?

 

[rellascout]

Deanimator,

Why not simply answer the question?

You stated:

"I'm not willing to compromise ANYTHING on guns."

Does everyone who is pro-gun believe the same thing that you do?

 

[Deanimator]

Does everyone who is pro-gun believe the same thing that you do?

If you're willing to "compromise" with what Brady, VPC and Cease Fire want, you're not pro-gun, any more than somebody who supports de jure racial segregation is in favor of equal protection under the law.

People can lie.
I don't have to believe them.

 

[rellascout]

If you're willing to "compromise" with what Brady, VPC and Cease Fire want, you're not pro-gun, any more than somebody who supports de jure racial segregation is in favor of equal protection under the law.

People can lie.
I don't have to believe them.

So if you are willing to compromise at all you are not pro-gun? So anyone who believes in the concept of reasonable restriction which is well documented and well established in Constitutional law is no-pro gun?

So in your mind all pro-gun people think and believe the exact same thing?

You are again attempting to use a red herring to distract from the issue at hand. You continue to try infuse racism into the dicussion. Please can we have a "logical and reasonable" disscussion?

 

[Nushif]

Alright, lemme simplify this, then, Deanimator. I will take a quote from your post now.

You said: "And there we have the anti-gun talking points."
Now, from what I am reading the next following list will be things that antis day, right? Let's look at your first item.
"I'm an agnostic."
My question to you now is how you are getting to the conclusion that agnosticism is linked to anti-ism? Next point.
"I'm in favor of gay marriage."
Same question. How are you reaching the conclusion that one's sexual uh ... allowance for others I guess? has any impact on one's gun politics?
Your third point is kind of an "of course." Being anti means not wanting to people to have guns, yes.

So, can you explain how you correlate the first two to necessarily anti talking points?

 

[Deanimator]

So if you are willing to compromise at all you are not pro-gun? So anyone who believes in the concept of reasonable restriction which is well documented and well established in Constitutional law is no-pro gun?

Dick Daley said that Chicago's gun ban was a "reasonable restriction".

Name some "reasonable restrictions".

 

[rellascout]

Dick Daley said that Chicago's gun ban was a "reasonable restriction".

Name some "reasonable restrictions".

Again you are not answering the very simple questions.

So if you are willing to compromise at all you are not pro-gun?

So anyone who believes in the concept of reasonable restriction which is well documented and well established in Constitutional law is no-pro gun?

Yet another red herring:

Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

 

[Deanimator]

So, can you explain how you correlate the first two to necessarily anti talking points?

I don't need to "explain it" because I didn't do it.

I CONTRASTED my own non-gun related beliefs with the juvenile, cartoonish portrayal of gun owners to which I responded.

Gun owners were allegedly "god, guns and gays".

I'm an agnostic, support gay marriage and am opposed to ANY compromise with anti-gun forces.

I have ZERO duty to live DOWN to your stereotypes.

I guess either the person who characterized gun owners in the way described either lied, or I'm lying about my non-gun related beliefs.

 

[rellascout]

I have ZERO duty to live DOWN to your stereotypes.

Yet you seem to have no issue applying stereotypes onto others. You rightfully shrug off the labels others would apply to you but in the same breathe apply stereotyping labels to others...

I find that hyprocritical.

 

[Deanimator]

Yet you seem to have no issue applying stereotypes onto others. You rightfully shrug off the labels others would apply to you but in the same breathe apply stereotyping labels to others...

I call people out for their dishonesty and calculated deception plans.

Clearly you don't like that, and that's entirely your right to do so.

It's entirely my right not to treat it with any seriousness.

I find that hyprocritical.

More like inconvenient.

 

[rellascout]

Name some "reasonable restrictions".

Classic example of reasonable restriction is: You cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre if there is no fire. This applies to the 1st Amendment not the 2nd but it is applicable.

NICS system is a valid reasonable restriction placed on the purchaser of a firearm from a FFL dealer. It is soundly grounded in Constitutional law.

I have answer your question directly now can you answer mine?

 

[Deanimator]

NICS system is a valid reasonable restriction placed on the purchaser of a firearm from a FFL dealer. It is soundly grounded in Constitutional law.

And that's the ONLY "reasonable restriction" desired by gun control advocates?

Since they ALREADY have it, what are they still ranting about?

Could it be that they want a LOT more, which you're ALSO willing to "compromise" on?

• owner licensing
• firearms registration
• "arsenal" licenses for firearms and ammunition
• "microstamping" of ammunition
• one gun a month
• assault weapon ban
• ban on .50 (not just BMG) firearms
• full capacity magazine ban
• ban on concealed carry
• ban on open carry
• ban on concealable handguns
• ban on expanding ammunition
• ban on ammunition that can penetrate a soft ballistic vest

Those are all "reasonable restrictions". Just ask Sarah Brady and Josh Sugermann.

 

[rellascout]

I am done. For someone who claimed to be able to use logic to demonstrate the pro-gun position I find your ability to debate lacking. I have yet to read a post from you that did not contain a logical fallacy. You continue to make references to specific people, opinions and thoughts and then apply them to a group of individuals.

Again how many times can one say:

ALL POODLES ARE DOGS NOT ALL DOGS ARE POODLES.

The reality is that all pro-gun people do not think alike. I certainly am pro-gun. I certainly do not share your feelings on the subject. Many other pro-gun THR members have also disagreed with your take. Even if you refuse to acknowledge this it demonstrates diversity in the pro-gun community.

It is therefore logical to apply this same concept of diversity to the anti-gun crowd which is also made up of individuals and who have a diversity of opinion. You however attempt to use stereotypes to paint them with a broad stroke which simply does not apply.

Take a step back and look at what you have written in this thread using an unbiased objective mindset and you will discover you have failed to make a logical arguement for your position. You have committed the same logical fallacies time and time again. You bring in unrelated topics in order to inflame and distract from the point at hand. Your tactics which you claim are so effective that they are your greatest contribution to RBKA cause are poor in content and in form. They would never convince anyone to change their mindset or their opinion to a pro-gun stance. IMHO if anything it might drive people away.

Please read up on some basic logic and debate tactics. Learn to create arguements not sound bites. I think you will find it is much more effective than ranting and raving at other members of the pro-gun community.