Do most antis have reasons for being anti?

[Nushif]

"If that's the case, you'd see them denouncing the Brady Campaign/VPC/CSGV most vociferously in many online venues."

Pretty sure they don't go on this board to see our talks about Ted Nugent.

 

[mr.trooper]

I think the "scared of guns" people and the "learned it from their parents/college" people are one in the same thing. They are both fearful out of ignorance and misinformation.

I would say the majority of the remaining antis hate guns for darn good reasons - usually because some idiot with a gun did something really stupid, and scared them. They got robbed at gunpoint, their ex threatened them with a gun, some "friend" they ignored for 6 months committed suicide, ect.

That may not be 'logical', but when a traumatic experience is combined with strong emotions it is certainly understandable.

 

[Deanimator]

"If that's the case, you'd see them denouncing the Brady Campaign/VPC/CSGV most vociferously in many online venues."

Pretty sure they don't go on this board to see our talks about Ted Nugent.

That didn't address the point, DID it?

I've had email conversations with anti-gunners who stated that they didn't condemn use of racial slurs against me by fellow anti-gunners in usenet posts because they wanted to maintain "solidarity" with the anti-gun "liberals" doing their David Duke impressions.

But again, if it makes anti-gunners look bad, it never really happened, RIGHT?

 

[Nushif]

But again, if it makes anti-gunners look bad, it never really happened, RIGHT?

Calm down there, buddy! We're on the same side, at least last I checked.

 

[rellascout]

If you're so concerned with the intellectual state of most pro-gun folks, perhaps you ought undertake an effort to educate them rather than condescending to them all the time.

I am sorry that you find correcting someone who claims to be taking the "logical high road" as condecending. I think it was being corrective. Kind of like when someone tells a newbie its a magazine not a clip. If people really understood what "logic" really is and how to present real logical arguements the discourse would not only be more intelligent I believe it would be more productive.

If we are going to debate within our own community or with the anti-gun community we need to employ sound logical form and sound logical reasoning. If we do not use this as the basis for finding or illustrating truth then we are not really debating a point. We are spouting opinions which amount to circular logic. Which IMHO ends up just preaching to the choir. If you were anti-gun to start you stay anti-gun if you were pro-gun to start you simply confirm your beliefs. Circular reasoning and circular logic does not get us anywhere.





I think that someone who has said that their pro-gun "logic" trumped the the anti-gun position and they are incapable of using logic and reason is ripe to be critized for their poor use of logic.

I just find it odd that so many pro-gun people paint every anti-gun person with a broad brush stroke. They treat them as if they are all the same when in fact just like the pro-gun side they are made up of individuals who think what they think for many different reasons. We do not like the stereotypes they employ to marginalize us yet we do the exact same thing. I am sorry that you do not see the hypocrisy in that.

 

[rellascout]

I've had email conversations with anti-gunners who stated that they didn't condemn use of racial slurs against me by fellow anti-gunners in usenet posts because they wanted to maintain "solidarity" with the anti-gun "liberals" doing their David Duke impressions.

But again, if it makes anti-gunners look bad, it never really happened, RIGHT?

All poodles are dogs not all dogs are poodles.

 

[Deanimator]

Calm down there, buddy! We're on the same side, at least last I checked.

Are we?

The AHSA types always say that.

 

[rellascout]

Are we?

The AHSA types always say that.

And this is what passes for civil discourse? Why are you so hostile? I do not have to agree with someone else's point of view in order to understand it. Honestly more insight is gained when you understand why people believe something different that you do.

I am and have been an atheist my entire life. Yet I went to Catholic HS and was a religion major in college. I spent years trying to understand a mindset I did not share. The more I learned the more I understood. It did not change my beliefs but it did help me understand why they believe.

 

[Deanimator]

And this is what passes for civil discourse?

I didn't call him any names, threaten him or anything else in violation of the terms of service.

I questioned his motives, as do I question yours.

Or should that be prohibited... it certainly is on most pro-gun control forums.

I've got no duty to take anyone at their word, especially when I have reason not to.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

Deep breaths dude, in through the nose and out through the mouth.

You do realize that being loud, and categorizing people only polarizes an argument is such a way that no one wants to listen to you right?

 

[rellascout]

I didn't call him any names, threaten him or anything else in violation of the terms of service.

I questioned his motives, as do I question yours.

Or should that be prohibited... it certainly is on most pro-gun control forums.

I've got no duty to take anyone at their word, especially when I have reason not to.

I am not talking about the terms of service. I am talking about taking "The High Road". I am talking about having a civil dicussion with someone who does not see completely eye to eye with you.

Why would you question his motives? Why would you question mine? You seem to feel a need to label people, put them in a box you have defined, in an attempt to marginalize them.

The irony of all ironies is that is exactly how the antis try to strip us of our gun rights. HGUNHNTR is spot on. The more you lash out the more marginalized you become except to those who agreed with you before the dicussion started.

 

[Deanimator]

"Don't bring that up, it makes me uncomfortable." isn't an argument.

I've been dealing with anti-gunners for 30+ years. They are what they are, and what a LOT of them is is racists, anti-Semites and homophobes. You can ignore the racist and anti-Semitic slurs and the imputation of homosexuality as a DEFECT. They're still there, ON DISPLAY if you only look.

There are bigoted people who own guns. 99% of the time, they ONLY support the right to keep and bear arms for members of groups of whom they approve.

Are they "pro-gun"?

Only if somebody who claims that the 1st Amendment applies only to White, male Christians is "pro-freedom of speech".

Strangely, anti-gunners will tell you that it's ok for them to use racial slurs because they're "liberal" and they're only being "politically incorrect".

 

[HGUNHNTR]

trangely, anti-gunners will tell you that it's ok for them to use racial slurs because they're "liberal" and they're only being "politically incorrect".

While I respect your right to your opinion, I have never heard this as an excuse for racism on either side of the RKBA argument..actually I really don't even understand the point you are trying to make.

I don't know how it is in Ohio, but sadly in Georgia if you had to categorize (which I don't) one side of the RKBA side as having a tendency towards racism, I would have to say the pro gun (conservative typically) crowd would outweigh the anti gun (typically but not always) Liberal crowd. At the very least in public perception.

 

[Deanimator]

I am not talking about the terms of service.

The terms of service directly address the "High Road".

What you're saying is that NOBODY can question the motivations of any of the previous parade of AHSA types who've passed through here, even though everyone KNOWS that their motives were to deceive.

Strangely, when THEY have impugned the motives of pro-gun people, such as questioning their masculinity, sanity, etc., that's just peachy. Funny how that works, huh? Kind of like the same Japanese (and their post-war apologists) who bombed much of Shanghai, Chungking and Manila flat complaining about the bombing of Tokyo.

I'm often reminded of the Monty Python skit where the character "Gumby" rambles about how they should tax everyone standing in water... then looks down to find himself standing ankle deep in a stream. Like the anti-gunners and their AHSA defenders, all he can do is bellow, "NOOOOOOO!"

 

[Deanimator]

While I respect your right to your opinion, I have never heard this as an excuse for racism on either side of the RKBA argument..actually I really don't even understand the point you are trying to make.

That's pretty odd given how clear I've been about it.

The history of gun control in the United States is the history of violent White supremacism.

I have REPEATEDLY seen race used as a justification for limiting firearms ownership, both openly and by implication. Ever wonder why Rudy Giuliani thinks the 2nd Amendment applies differently in NYC than in Nebraska? If it DOES, then why doesn't the 13th Amendment apply differently in Mississippi than in New Hampshire?

The anti-gun apple hasn't fallen very far from the tree at all.

 

[Nushif]

What you're saying is that NOBODY can question the motivations of any of the previous parade of AHSA types who've passed through here, even though everyone KNOWS that their motives were to deceive.

Strangely, when THEY have impugned the motives of pro-gun people, such as questioning their masculinity, sanity, etc., that's just peachy. Funny how that works, huh? Kind of like the same Japanese (and their post-war apologists) who bombed much of Shanghai, Chungking and Manila flat complaining about the bombing of Tokyo.

You're doing two things here ... first you're saying my objective is to lie. You're calling me a liar. Unless claiming someone's objective is to "deceive" doesn't mean lying anymore.
Secondly what you're doing is inventing things. I have never questioned either your masculinity or femininity, your sanity, or your knowledge of latin. Alright, the latin bit was a joke, but come on.

Relax man, All I am saying is that our fabled history of logic, rationality and "civil discourse" isn't as clean as we claim it.

And I do have to be honest if you're going to pull the racism card ... in Texas, Oregon and in Delaware, as well as NH ... the larger trend here is on the pro-gun side. Not that this is any kind of excuse on either side.

edit:
By the by, I googled AHSA ... what does some random medical admin group have to do with the RKBA stuff?

 

[Justin]

Nushif, I don't think he was addressing you specifically, but speaking more toward anti-gun activists.

While I'm not going to try to divine whether or not they're attempting to lie outright, the times I've attempted to engage with them has resulted in a lot of obfuscation and shifting of goal posts. For example, many anti-gun activists, up to and including people like Paul Helmke, have claimed that the NRA and pro-rights people want "anyone to have a gun" when the record on this is quite evidently contrary to their claims, as neither the NRA nor any pro-gun activist with any amount of power has ever agitated to remove the prohibition of convicted felons or the mentally disturbed to be armed.

Whether this is just the anti-gun side engaging in hyperbole, being misinformed, or outright lying really doesn't matter to me as the fundamental outcome is that the anti-gun activists are misleading the public. I certainly wouldn't fault someone for thinking that the anti-gun activists are lying. The only other conclusions to be drawn are that they are engaging in ridiculous and overblown rhetoric or that they are fundamentally too stupid to educate themselves on the issue.

 

[rellascout]

Nushif, I don't think he was addressing you specifically, but speaking more toward anti-gun activists.

Your wrong Justin... go back a re-read the thread. He is calling fellow Hi-Road members anti-gun.

He clearly is attempting to call me an anti-gun person here. He is saying that if I do not accept his take on things based on his anecdotal then I am anti-gun. He applies the same logic to Nushif :

Clearly theory always trumps observed reality... if you're an anti-gunner.

"What you experienced didn't really didn't happen because it makes me feel bad." is a REALLY lousy argument.

Then he states this.

I questioned his motives, as do I question yours.

Coupled with this:

What you're saying is that NOBODY can question the motivations of any of the previous parade of AHSA types who've passed through here, even though everyone KNOWS that their motives were to deceive.

Strangely, when THEY have impugned the motives of pro-gun people, such as questioning their masculinity, sanity, etc., that's just peachy. Funny how that works, huh? Kind of like the same Japanese (and their post-war apologists) who bombed much of Shanghai, Chungking and Manila flat complaining about the bombing of Tokyo

If you follow the conversation he first states people who do not agree with his anecdotal evidence are anti-gun. He then questions their motives. When called out on this he states he feels he has the right to question the motives of other High road member because it does not voliate the terms of use. He then goes on to push further that he has the right to question AHSA types = people who do not agree with his ancedotial evidence which he has established are anti-gun because they are here to decieve...

I am sorry Justin but your bias is showing. Nushif was 100% spot on with his rebuttle.

 

[Justin]

edit:
By the by, I googled AHSA ... what does some random medical admin group have to do with the RKBA stuff?

AHSA is/was a purported "sportsman's" organization that claimed to be pro-gun while agitating for things like reinstating the assault weapon ban and ending private f2f gun sales.

One of their initial board members was a former Brady Campaign organizer.

Note added:

It appears that AHSA is now defunct. Their website is down and their Facebook page hasn't been updated since last year. In retrospect, it appears that the claims that they were nothing more than a fly-by-night operation designed to push casual gun owners and hunters to vote for Obama in the last election are clear.

This would make them the third now-defunct, purportedly "pro-gun" false flag organization that I'm aware of. The other two organizations would be the National Firearms Association*, which was active during the 1980s, and Americans for Gun Safety, which was active in the late 1990s.


*Not to be confused with the currently active Canadian pro-gun organization of the same name.

Sent from my Android smart phone using Tapatalk.

 

[Heretic]

Wow, I wish you guy had this discussion last winter. I could have save money on heat.

 

[LibShooter]

What do we mean by "they?" The OP's question was "Do most antis have reasons for being anti?" Polls show about half of Americans favor gun control. I don't believe that 150 million Americans are racist communists willing to lie to prop up a belief they know is unsupportable.

They are just ordinary people who don't want people to have guns. They didn't come to that opinion by carefully weighing the pros and cons. It's a gut call... just like my opinion on say... same sex marriage. It just "seems" right.

Are there some "activists" out there willing to tell outright lies and suffer racists and crazies in their zeal to turn America against any kind of gun ownership? Certainly. They may even be loud and hard to ignore on forums and comment pages. But "mainstream" gun opponents don't act that way. They couldn't. We're keeping a close eye on them. They will cherry pick statistics and examples to bolster their positions. They may even appeal to emotion when the cold hard facts won't do. That's spin. Our side does it, too. If you don't think so you need to take off your blinders and look around.

This is an issue that reasonable people disagree on.

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

One thing that REALLY gets anti-gun people and advocates laughing at pro-gunners is often the all-or-nothing kind of attitude they often take, especially when it comes to political candidates.

Now I'm not referring to our Jeffersonian crowd here, who sip fine liqeour in their personal library of leather bound books and debate the intellectual merits of enlightenment-era philosophy, but the every day gun-totin' folks.

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.

It's not really a good proposition that someone is willing to let the entire world fall apart around them because they need a 30 round magazine for their AR. They'll claim they need that gun to protect their home, and to which the question is posed, "what home would you need to defend if it's nothing but a gutted out husk of a home since you have no income to begin with? Do you really think someone wants your $300 TV that bad?"

I mean I have seen people who live in homes not worth $30k including everything in it, beat up junker cars and not a nickel in their pockets, that have tens of thousands of dollars worth of guns. Sure it's your money to spend however you'd like but don't expect people to not give you funny looks when you own 14 different 1911s but don't bother to go to the dentist for a cleaning once a year.

 

[Nushif]

Now I'm not referring to our Jeffersonian crowd here, who sip fine liqeour in their personal library of leather bound books and debate the intellectual merits of enlightenment-era philosophy [...]

Now *that* is awesome and funny. But kinda true. This kinda does seem to be the brain trust of the pro gun movement.

 

[Heretic]

There you go confusing liberal with leftist again. I'm an athiest, but you can be any religion you want. I'm not gay, but you can be if you want. I'm a gun owner, but you don't have to be. I guess I'm pretty liberal for a conservative, but when someone tells me I have to believe in their god, or have to have sex with a man, or can't have a gun, thats where I draw a line you don't want to cross. The second amendment is the one most contested, because it's the keystone to the destruction of the rest. It exists to defend the rest. Leftists are the enemy of all that this country stands for.
OK just so we're clear :liberal=good.
leftist=bad.

 

[Justin]

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.

That's kind of hilarious if you think that applies to me.

In general I've found that a person's stance regarding the personal ownership of guns is often a solid indicator of where they'll fall with regard to other issues of personal and economic liberty.

What do we mean by "they?" The OP's question was "Do most antis have reasons for being anti?" Polls show about half of Americans favor gun control. I don't believe that 150 million Americans are racist communists willing to lie to prop up a belief they know is unsupportable.

I'd be tremendously curious to know if those Americans who favor stricter gun control are actually conversant in the legal issues surrounding firearms and their ownership/use.

Additionally, if you further asked them to prove whether or not those gun control laws are actually effective in any way at reducing violent crime, they'd be at a loss to actually prove such a thing.

I'd be willing to bet that most of them have no idea. Between the anti-gun activists who make it sound like anyone can buy any sort of firearms they want, and Hollywood and TV reinforcing those notions, I'd be thoroughly unsurprised to find out that most of those people would revise their stance on gun control if they were personally affected by some of the gun laws in this country.

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