Deanimator
Member
I guess you just weren't willing to tell us what you're REALLY willing to "compromise".
Do most antis have reasons for being anti?
- Thread starter Charleo0192
- Start date
- Status
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Perhaps deanimator, along with others in this thread, could be convinced that there are reasonable or honest anti-gun activists if some proof of one could be produced.
Sent from my Android smart phone using Tapatalk.
Sent from my Android smart phone using Tapatalk.
Deanimator
Member
I'm 53 years old. I've been waiting since I was in 5th grade.
rellascout
member
Its all a matter of perspective. There are many reasonable and honest anti-gun activist if you are not married to all or nothing approach. I know you will disagree but when you live in a world of absolutes, when you believe you are right beyond all doubt there is no need for a plan B or compromise.
This is the short coming and the achilles heel of both sides of gun issues in this country. IMHO YMMV
Deanimator
Member
So then there's absolutely no reason in the world for you NOT to produce a list of gun control measures which have not YET been implemented on which you'd be willing to "compromise".
Please do so.
How about:
assault weapon ban
ban on full capacity magazines
ban on concealed carry
Would you be willing to "compromise" on any of those and HOW?
Deanimator
Member
Ayman al Zawahiri definitely has a different "perspective" on religious liberty than I do, and maybe different from your own as well.
On what would you "compromise" with him?
I differ with "mainstream" anti-gun organizations on gun control every bit as much as I disagree with Ayman al Zawahiri on religious liberty, democracy and the rights of women. If you won't "compromise" with him on Sharia law, aren't you being as "absolutist" as I am vis a vis VPC and gun control?
Nushif
Member
You know, I might compromise with him that in his select reading of his variety holy text yes ... that could possibly be interpreted that way. I won't buy into it, but I could read a passage, imagine his mindset and say "Well. I guess that would make sense."
Much like I can imagine the plight of our misguided Lady Brady. I don't have to agree, but at least I can "compromise" my thoughts enough to say "Well, as misguided as I think her thinking is I see where she reached that conclusion."
Nobody here is saying they agree with gun control. What we're saying is that maybe .. just maybe ... these "Antis" are not godless, communistic amoral and treacherous Fascists hellbent on dominating the US and then the world after.
All I am peronally saying is that they're just as capable of individual thought and reasoning as any of us. And that coming from their base premises their reasoning is both internally consistent and logical.
People here keep pointing to these zealots who for all intents and purposes are arguing anti gun faith. They keep saying "This is an anti gunner! See? All Anti Gunners are irrational!"
No. They're not. Lady Brady is our Ted Nugent, quoting meaningless statistics and appealing largely on an emotional level to people who she's sold already. The Nugents and Bradys aren't there to convince fence sitters and midling people. They're here to reinforce the moral beliefs (in this case concerning the second amendment) of people who already chose a side.
And that is what I'm saying. For every screaming woman who attends rallies and says it's morally superior to be raped in a back alley than to defend oneself we have some guy claiming that he's a sheepdog spouting off on less moderated forums about how he plans to shoot anyone who walks in his door at night several times and then drag them inside the door.
And I do believe that is all I'm saying.
Last edited:
I just read many comments each trying to convince the other. There is no middle ground. You are either pro or con on gun control and am convinced that neither will change their opinion. Opinions on both sides sometimes are irrational but won't be changed. I simply believe I can defend myself, family, friends, country and total strangers because it is my duty as a human not to mention my God given right, not the 2nd Amendment. That's me personally and I avoid explaining or arguing my position.
It's simple. It's spelled out in the amendment itself. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". In case you didn't get that "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". I don't see any room for compromise in "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". But maybe you consider yourself smarter or more moral than our founding fathers.
Nushif
Member
Considering women couldn't got back then in some ways yes. Most of us are arguably more ethical.
Unless you care to contest that.
Unless you care to contest that.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Reasonable
No.
The NICS system is an infringement on arms ownership and privacy grounded in "reasonableness" -- rationalization -- not the Constitution.
NICS is me having to prove I'm not you every time I want to exercise a right.
That's BS, and always has been.
The "plausible" argument has been put forth that a man is "once a felon, always a felon" and that "all felons cannot be trusted with firearms" and that therefore "everyone who wants a firearm must first prove he's not a felon." And this is only made necessary by the falsehood that even after a man has served his just sentence, he hasn't really fulfilled the requirements of humanity, and being less than human, he therefore has rights only at our pleasure (this, of course, is not "cruel"). So we don't trust him, but even so we "must" let him out to mingle with the general population ('cuz to do otherwise would be "cruel"). This of course creates a plausible foundation for making him a "prohibited person" and thus (since we can't register all non-prohibited persons) the good guys must always prove they're not the bad guys.
That's all reasonable.
No, it's crap.
It's a sullen child with the power of armed enforcers sulking about having to allow people to have arms, and throwing up all conceivable barriers to arms ownership.
There's nothing about NICS that's consistent with the Constitution.
Just because you can argue something plausibly and convince the weak-minded that it's "for the common good" (and besides, they'll elect you if you do it) doesn't make it right.
Scholars of "reasonableness" be damned. Get your nose out from under my tent.
No.
The NICS system is an infringement on arms ownership and privacy grounded in "reasonableness" -- rationalization -- not the Constitution.
NICS is me having to prove I'm not you every time I want to exercise a right.
That's BS, and always has been.
The "plausible" argument has been put forth that a man is "once a felon, always a felon" and that "all felons cannot be trusted with firearms" and that therefore "everyone who wants a firearm must first prove he's not a felon." And this is only made necessary by the falsehood that even after a man has served his just sentence, he hasn't really fulfilled the requirements of humanity, and being less than human, he therefore has rights only at our pleasure (this, of course, is not "cruel"). So we don't trust him, but even so we "must" let him out to mingle with the general population ('cuz to do otherwise would be "cruel"). This of course creates a plausible foundation for making him a "prohibited person" and thus (since we can't register all non-prohibited persons) the good guys must always prove they're not the bad guys.
That's all reasonable.
No, it's crap.
It's a sullen child with the power of armed enforcers sulking about having to allow people to have arms, and throwing up all conceivable barriers to arms ownership.
There's nothing about NICS that's consistent with the Constitution.
Just because you can argue something plausibly and convince the weak-minded that it's "for the common good" (and besides, they'll elect you if you do it) doesn't make it right.
Scholars of "reasonableness" be damned. Get your nose out from under my tent.
rellascout
member
ArfinGreebly that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. You are doing a great job of preaching to the choir. Now take that exact argument and present it to people who are on the fence. People who are squarely in the middle and lets see how many you convince to come over to our side of the gun debate. I would be interesting to see how many would be swayed by such an argument. I am going to bet very few. Just like very few would be swayed if an anti-gun presenter proposed NO guns at all.
If you are so sure you are right then challenge it in court. If it were that cut and dry it would have been challenged already and overturned. The reality is that if someone thought they could win with your position they would have challenged. If it was as simply as that why has it been allowed to stand. I am not a lawyer or Constitutional scholar but for me the fact no one has successfully challenged the NICS background checks and won is evidence that people know it infact does pass Constitutional muster no matter what a mod on THR says to the contrary.
It is these types of statements that make our side look unreasonable. I do not understand why we cannot see the forest for the trees.
If you are so sure you are right then challenge it in court. If it were that cut and dry it would have been challenged already and overturned. The reality is that if someone thought they could win with your position they would have challenged. If it was as simply as that why has it been allowed to stand. I am not a lawyer or Constitutional scholar but for me the fact no one has successfully challenged the NICS background checks and won is evidence that people know it infact does pass Constitutional muster no matter what a mod on THR says to the contrary.
It is these types of statements that make our side look unreasonable. I do not understand why we cannot see the forest for the trees.
Last edited:
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Many of the "Common Sense" gun laws are there because of what we might do instead of what we actually do. There was a time that you could be arrested and charged with a felony over a pack of rolling papers in your pocket...under the premise that you might roll something besides tobacco. "Drug Paraphenalia" was the term. This, despite the fact that a good many country folks rolled their own cigarettes. Didn't matter. If you didn't have a pack of TOP tobacco in your pocket to go along with those papers...busted. Even if you did...if you didn't "seem" to be the type to roll your own...busted.
Felons may not legally own or possess guns. Ever. Reasonable. Right?
Failing to return a book borrowed from the public library, and then failing to pay for said book results in a Class H felony conviction in NC...and the notification is served by mail without delivery confirmation. If something happens and you don't get the notification, you can lose your right to own a gun...forever...over a library book.
Reasonable?
An old friend of mine had a girlfriend in his 20s. She was a nutcase...literally. He discovered it, and broke it off. When she ran into him months later with another girl, she physically attacked him. In holding her off, she slipped and fell. Minor injuries that could have been taken care of with a bottle of peroxide and a band-aid...but she went to the hospital and made a statement that he had assaulted her. Despite witnesses...including me...he was charged, and had his day in court. His attorney advised him to plead it down to disorderly behavior and pay a little fine...or ante up several hundred dollars for his defense. He pled it down, and paid the fine. 30 years later, the Sheriff's office delivered the warrant removing his guns from his house. He arranged for them to be stored at his brother's home, and is still fighting it.
Reasonable?
Another guy I went to high school with was busted on a drug charge when he was 19. He had half a joint in his pocket. It was a felony at the time. Today, the cop would take the joint and send him on his way...if he even paid it any attention at all. After spending 10,000 dollars with lawyer over the course of five years...he was able to get it expunged, and regained his right to own a gun. He had to wait until the mid-90s before he could afford to hire the lawyer. His conviction was in 1970.
Reasonable. Right? I mean...he was a felon, after all.
Felons may not legally own or possess guns. Ever. Reasonable. Right?
Failing to return a book borrowed from the public library, and then failing to pay for said book results in a Class H felony conviction in NC...and the notification is served by mail without delivery confirmation. If something happens and you don't get the notification, you can lose your right to own a gun...forever...over a library book.
Reasonable?
An old friend of mine had a girlfriend in his 20s. She was a nutcase...literally. He discovered it, and broke it off. When she ran into him months later with another girl, she physically attacked him. In holding her off, she slipped and fell. Minor injuries that could have been taken care of with a bottle of peroxide and a band-aid...but she went to the hospital and made a statement that he had assaulted her. Despite witnesses...including me...he was charged, and had his day in court. His attorney advised him to plead it down to disorderly behavior and pay a little fine...or ante up several hundred dollars for his defense. He pled it down, and paid the fine. 30 years later, the Sheriff's office delivered the warrant removing his guns from his house. He arranged for them to be stored at his brother's home, and is still fighting it.
Reasonable?
Another guy I went to high school with was busted on a drug charge when he was 19. He had half a joint in his pocket. It was a felony at the time. Today, the cop would take the joint and send him on his way...if he even paid it any attention at all. After spending 10,000 dollars with lawyer over the course of five years...he was able to get it expunged, and regained his right to own a gun. He had to wait until the mid-90s before he could afford to hire the lawyer. His conviction was in 1970.
Reasonable. Right? I mean...he was a felon, after all.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
And I've never made that argument. Granted, tyrants and dictators tend to be rather enamored of gun control, but I never made the claim that this means that Sarah Brady or Josh Sugarmann have dictatorial plans in place once they seize power.
How so?
If that's the case, then perhaps you'd care to explain what positions a "rational anti" would hold. Furthermore, any links to evidence of such a person would be tremendously appreciated.
And again, the point of this discussion is to dissect and examine the motivations of anti-gun people. I fail to understand how an attempt to continually bring the discussion back to the small minority of people on our side who are irrational actually does anything to further the point of the thread, since they aren't actually the point.
Rational anti???? Is there such a thing? Perhaps they hide out with bigfoot and the loch ness monster.
I've heard a lot of arguments from anti's, but never one I could call rational.
When this country was founded, women didn't have the right to vote,thats true. That was because of the teachings of the church. Even today, I do not find much morality in the church.(Jim Baker,whats his name Swaggert, Priests and choirboys etc.)
Women eventually won that right. I don't think they won it by comprimising, they won it by demanding their rights and refusing to comprimise.
I've heard a lot of arguments from anti's, but never one I could call rational.
When this country was founded, women didn't have the right to vote,thats true. That was because of the teachings of the church. Even today, I do not find much morality in the church.(Jim Baker,whats his name Swaggert, Priests and choirboys etc.)
Women eventually won that right. I don't think they won it by comprimising, they won it by demanding their rights and refusing to comprimise.
Last edited:
Cryogaijin
Member
Going by the letter of the amendment, the only "reasonable" restrictions on firearms AT ALL, are to restrict them away from people that could not "reasonably" constitute a militiaman in the historic sense of the term.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
On the question of anti-gun vs pro-gun...the truly rabid factions are really in the minority.
I know more than a few people who take the anti stance without being idiotic in their beliefs about guns. They simply don't care for them and prefer not to have one in the house for various reasons.
I also know many who are strongly pro gun without adopting the shoot first/shoot to kill stance. In fact, I fall into that category.
Both types do more harm to their camps when they come off as radical because they come off as...well...nutty. Radical makes most people a bit nervous regardless of the issue. They give the impression of being subject to going out of control with little provocation, focusing their anger on whoever doesn't agree with their stance on the issue. I try to avoid both types.
I believe that people with histories of violence, mental illness, and substance abuse probably shouldn't have free, legal access to firearms, but I'm also realistic enough to know that simply restricting them legally won't mean a thing if they want a gun. These people are the main reason that I believe that the right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be infringed. How many women have been killed and crippled by abusive husbands, boyfriends, and stalkers during ridiculous waiting periods? If they've passed the instant background check...they should be able to buy their gun on the day they find one because it could very well save their lives.
I know more than a few people who take the anti stance without being idiotic in their beliefs about guns. They simply don't care for them and prefer not to have one in the house for various reasons.
I also know many who are strongly pro gun without adopting the shoot first/shoot to kill stance. In fact, I fall into that category.
Both types do more harm to their camps when they come off as radical because they come off as...well...nutty. Radical makes most people a bit nervous regardless of the issue. They give the impression of being subject to going out of control with little provocation, focusing their anger on whoever doesn't agree with their stance on the issue. I try to avoid both types.
I believe that people with histories of violence, mental illness, and substance abuse probably shouldn't have free, legal access to firearms, but I'm also realistic enough to know that simply restricting them legally won't mean a thing if they want a gun. These people are the main reason that I believe that the right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be infringed. How many women have been killed and crippled by abusive husbands, boyfriends, and stalkers during ridiculous waiting periods? If they've passed the instant background check...they should be able to buy their gun on the day they find one because it could very well save their lives.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
There are people who are consistent in their belief. For instance, it's not terribly surprising to see someone like Colin Goddard, who was shot at the Virginia Tech shooting, become an anti-gun activist. He's stated that he wouldn't have fought back even if he had been armed.
However, where his logic falls apart is when he assumes that no one would have fought back under those circumstances, or that fighting back in such circumstances would always be futile.
Furthermore, the "logic" of most anti-gun arguments falls apart once you actually look at the statistics involved or run a cost-benefit analysis on their proposals, especially in regard to laws like the ban on so-called "assault weapons."
Deanimator
Member
Such a person doesn't seek to violate the rights of others or harm them, only make a choice for THEMSELVES.
I'm not gay. That doesn't mean I support anti-sodomy laws, much less gaybashing.
It's the difference between somebody who doesn't eat meat and PETA.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
I believe following the historic sense of the word would exclude women, by my recollections of militia acts.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Women
Well, happily, that's been fixed.
What with suffrage having been amended and women serving in active duty combat roles, I don't believe a plausible case could be made excluding women from militia.
Well, happily, that's been fixed.
What with suffrage having been amended and women serving in active duty combat roles, I don't believe a plausible case could be made excluding women from militia.
Nushif
Member
You obviously do! You said this!
I guarantee you "the founding fathers" didn't want any womenfolk in their militias. Or politics.
Ironic Sidenote:
I really do get a kick out of the fact that the National Guard is actually a militia by its own admission. Love it!
The national guard ceased to be a militia when they were removed from state control.
Your second of my "quotes" is a founding father speaking.
The slavery of blacks and women was a church thing. Take it up with them.
I do recall that there were women who fought in the Rev.
Your second of my "quotes" is a founding father speaking.
The slavery of blacks and women was a church thing. Take it up with them.
I do recall that there were women who fought in the Rev.
Last edited:
Nushif
Member
One founding father does not all of them make. The question "Do you consider yourself smarter or more moral than the founding fathers" is simply put irrelevant. It is there to distract from the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" rant that you yourself posted earlier.
"Morality" is not a measure that's usable in a debate unless both parties share the same, and I do mean the exact same set of morals. And that has been proven once again.
Making the point that Antis are "immoral" is moot. the way the gun issue has managed dividing the populace has practically ensured both sides can consider each other immoral. It's like trying to pin down what a "American Value" is or a "European Value."
What I'm saying here is that to construct an argument to win over someone it has to be constucted from *their* base premise. And all this rhetoric of "immoral" or "right" or "wrong" is not material to trying to construct an argument with which we, the big evil gun owners, can make our point clear.
Demonizing Antis and claiming they have no moral, logical, ethical or whatever ground to stand on is not only truly ignorant (in the actual meaning of the word) but also serves only to alienate them and anyone they have sway over.
Have you ever wondered why you'll be hard pressed to find an Anti who says Cops and Soldiers shouldn't have guns? Because they know better! Because they know making that kind of argument would throw them into the "froth at the mouth" category and discredit them. They know full well hitting the complete end of a spectrum is useless and destroys all credibility. What we have to do is the exact. same. thing. The moment "we" as gun owners and pro RKBA types appear as if we're totally on one side of the spectrum we have effectively lost the middle.
edit:
There's plenty of reasons to be armed. Good ones.
the far left would want everyone armed so they can have their frequent revolutions. The far right wants to be armed for much of the same reson. The middle might want to be armed because of the far sides of the spectrum and frankly because there are bad people out there. Women might want to be armed because they're endangered by one of the most vicious forms of crime out there. Men might want ot be armed, because culture says we're the more martial types ... the rich might want to be armed for sport and to protect themselves and their stuff. The poor might want to be armed for the same reasons!
And all this demonizing and marginalizing of Antis only further drives us away from everyone who is not more and more a "gun owner." We could be a part of society everywhere both in width and height.
But for some reason we've come up with this fringe rhetoric and these public figures we somehow don't shut down that only marginalize us further and further.
This notion that "Antis" aka "People who don't agree with us" are somehow defetcive, mentally ill, fascists, communists, or whatever derogatory term we use is only hurting us. And that's the core of this question:
"Do most antis have reasons for being anti?" should read
"Where exactly do our points of view differ?" and from there we can go to
"How can I convince someone with a differing point of view in regards to firearm ownership that my point of view is just as credible?"
And I can assure you. Calling them an idiot, ignorant or mentally ill is not a starting point.
"Morality" is not a measure that's usable in a debate unless both parties share the same, and I do mean the exact same set of morals. And that has been proven once again.
Making the point that Antis are "immoral" is moot. the way the gun issue has managed dividing the populace has practically ensured both sides can consider each other immoral. It's like trying to pin down what a "American Value" is or a "European Value."
What I'm saying here is that to construct an argument to win over someone it has to be constucted from *their* base premise. And all this rhetoric of "immoral" or "right" or "wrong" is not material to trying to construct an argument with which we, the big evil gun owners, can make our point clear.
Demonizing Antis and claiming they have no moral, logical, ethical or whatever ground to stand on is not only truly ignorant (in the actual meaning of the word) but also serves only to alienate them and anyone they have sway over.
Have you ever wondered why you'll be hard pressed to find an Anti who says Cops and Soldiers shouldn't have guns? Because they know better! Because they know making that kind of argument would throw them into the "froth at the mouth" category and discredit them. They know full well hitting the complete end of a spectrum is useless and destroys all credibility. What we have to do is the exact. same. thing. The moment "we" as gun owners and pro RKBA types appear as if we're totally on one side of the spectrum we have effectively lost the middle.
edit:
There's plenty of reasons to be armed. Good ones.
the far left would want everyone armed so they can have their frequent revolutions. The far right wants to be armed for much of the same reson. The middle might want to be armed because of the far sides of the spectrum and frankly because there are bad people out there. Women might want to be armed because they're endangered by one of the most vicious forms of crime out there. Men might want ot be armed, because culture says we're the more martial types ... the rich might want to be armed for sport and to protect themselves and their stuff. The poor might want to be armed for the same reasons!
And all this demonizing and marginalizing of Antis only further drives us away from everyone who is not more and more a "gun owner." We could be a part of society everywhere both in width and height.
But for some reason we've come up with this fringe rhetoric and these public figures we somehow don't shut down that only marginalize us further and further.
This notion that "Antis" aka "People who don't agree with us" are somehow defetcive, mentally ill, fascists, communists, or whatever derogatory term we use is only hurting us. And that's the core of this question:
"Do most antis have reasons for being anti?" should read
"Where exactly do our points of view differ?" and from there we can go to
"How can I convince someone with a differing point of view in regards to firearm ownership that my point of view is just as credible?"
And I can assure you. Calling them an idiot, ignorant or mentally ill is not a starting point.
Last edited:
- Status