Has an anti ever visited the board?

Status
Not open for further replies.
But, THR is just not going to be the place where that conversation happens. Unfortunately, in my opinion, that really diminishes the overall value of THR.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that people who advocate separate "White" and "Colored" public restrooms and waterfountains don't appreciate having their motives questioned either...
 
because alternate ideas seem to be interpreted as an attack on their 'holinesses' themselves. If you don't understand, just read the posts that come after my last one.
Click to expand...

Alternate ideas are welcome, dishonesty is not.

If you believe THR's value is diminished by these types of threads... the door is that way.

If you would like to stay and discuss the topic honestly and openly that would be great, but honesty is required.

If you cite a source or quote a statistic to back up your argument, reveal the source of your data. Why hide it? If that information is part of the basis of your belief system, at least allow someone to challenge those beliefs.

If I quote the FBI UCR (which I often do) and you disagree with it, challenge those numbers, but be honest doing it.

There's a thread ongoing now where a poster told me that all FBI crime rate statistics are useless because the FBI is under the control of politicians who are afraid of the NRA, therefore the FBI incorrectly reports the rate of rifles used in crime because if the real rate were known people would demand a ban. That is not a way to have an honest debate on the subject at all. That's dishonest. And to be frank, it's borderline nutcase.

If it's Mayor Bloomberg (your last source in another thread) then by all means say so. Don't attempt to spin it. If you believe what Bloomberg or another source publishes you should be honest enough to just say it and debate on the merits of that alone. Then allow others the opportunity to counter the source of your data. If the 2 sources disagree (they likely will) and proof is given where one source was faked (the UC Davis report Bloomberg uses) then it's dishonest to pretend allis well. And, if put in a position where the source of your beliefs is proven wrong, the only honest answer is to at the very least admit that your beliefs might be based on false information and be willing to reconsider.

If someone disputes the data in your source, debate that on it's merits. Don't fall back to the "well you just won't listen" or "you just don't understand" argument. That is dishonest. That's what happened last time, and that's not a "debate" at all.
 
Last edited:
I for one have made numerous posts on The Puffington Host (at least that's what The Wall Street Journal calls them). There's a LOT of pro gun people who post on there, the antis seem to get drowned out on there own board.

From what I've seen on there, their argument basically comes down to "but guns were designed to kill people, we should ban them". You'll get that line a lot after you point out the FBI crime stats (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_11.html) where it clearly shows that knives, blunt objects, and beaten to death using no weapon at all are all leading rifles in the # of murders committed with said objects.
 
I seem to remember a very large thread from a few years back where a new member joined, stated up front that he leaned anti and didn't own guns and was curious about our point of view. A 12 page-plus reasonable and polite discussion between him and the board followed. His user information (at least a year or two ago when I dug up the thread, I think it was linked to by sm) said he was still actively reading the board, and although he had less than twenty posts, I think one of them was about buying his first gun. I can't seem to find it now, but it was posted back when Tamara was a mod, so its fairly old. The board has gotten a lot bigger and changed somewhat in overall "personality" since then, I'm not sure something like that would happen again.
Click to expand...

By any chance, was that the one with the college student who asked his anti-gun professor to come here to state his case? Or are we thinking of different threads?
 
cskny said:
Ah...I hear that little voice inside saying "fool me once, shame on you..blah blah blah". With many of the posters from that 'other' thread present and at full post speed - this is obviously going nowhere (backing statistics not necessary). We don't need this to turn into "gun-show" part II.

My only point for this thread:

LRS_Ranger - That's a amazingly reasonable response and it would be an awesome starting point for a great conversation. I'd love to hear your thoughts in more detail on some more specific issues.

But, THR is just not going to be the place where that conversation happens. Unfortunately, in my opinion, that really diminishes the overall value of THR.
Click to expand...
I was reading this and actually felt bad for you based just on this thread. But, I've lurked around here enough to respect the opinions of these guys you claim are attacking you so I just read about 75 percent of the loophole thread.

What I saw there was TexasRifleMan continually trying to engage you in factual discussion and you ignoring him while you complained about being attacked. I don't know you but from what I see, you aren't interested in those pesky facts when they get in the way of your opinions. I'm glad these guys keep on trying to fight your misinformation with real statistics. Wish I had that much patience...

-Chris

BTW, your user name seems really familiar to me. Do you spend time on home theater, headphone or Hayabusa forums by any chance?
 
Last edited:
I started reading this place about a year or two ago, before I eventually joined up. It seemed to have all the information one could desire on firearms and RKBA topics. It also had all the crass, "your opinion is wrong" types as well, typical of any forum I guess.

Different strokes for different folks, but I've noticed courtesy and gallantry become lacking. A shame too, considering this is "The High Road".
 
war squirrel: some of us who have been around this board awhile have become impatient with different kinds of posters hostile to RKBA topics. Several years ago, there would actually be a foray or two by the militant antigun types--for example, out of the Democrat Underground.

Then, just before any national election, others hostile to RKBA show up--but the rhetoric has gotten tweaked to provide some variant on the mantra of "I'm all for owning guns, but why should civilians...." Typically, these have been gun owners who really have no understanding of the political issues of firearms ownership and the 2nd Amendment; they are hobbyests whose hobby happens to involve some sort of firearm.

About three years ago, the AHSA types showed up. Keep in mind that AHSA is a group funded by gun control advocates, and it is a deliberate attempt to drive a propagadistic wedge in the shooting community. A recurring tactic (if you will) has been for new members of such a bent to post away for about 75 responses, and then advance their hypothesis that, for example, the 2nd Amendment should be rewritten.

For those of us who've been around, who've seen many of the 'arguments' for gun control, these antigun propositions are simply fallacious. And, we get impatient with seeing them on a pro-RKBA site. In short, we suffer fools poorly, particularly ones who are disingenuous.

TR's comments in post 52 above well describes how one can advance and discuss their propositions here, and have respect--IF you know your topic well, with all its antecedent suppositions.

Jim H.
 
Didn't you guys know all liberals are anti's? I read it here that if I support a liberal I am basically an "anti".

All BS aside, I am sure they come on here. I am sure they aim to incite arguments among gun owners. I am sure they succeed to some level.
 
By any chance, was that the one with the college student who asked his anti-gun professor to come here to state his case? Or are we thinking of different threads?
Click to expand...

I've tried searching for it again, both on THR and through google site:www.thehighroad.org, and no result. At this point the only thing I could do is search through Tamara's posts for it, but I just don't have that kind of time. Maybe you have some more options on your side of the software.

Here's what I know about it:
Forum: GD
Size: At least 12 pages
OP Subject: Some permutation of "I'm an anti, change my mind" or something like that
Time: Don't know, but pretty sure Tamara was still a mod. I think I found the link from sm on a thread about "what's the longest thread on THR". I'll look for that and see if I can find it.
 
Ah, thanks for clearing that up Jim. I haven't been around long enough to have tolerated all that. I can imagine it must get quite insufferable after some time.
 
The Wiry Irisman, Carl,

I went ahead and made it a sticky so we won't loose track of it. Very much a good example of the better nature of THR members and probably good to point to from time to time as a reminder of what we're about.
 
THR stands for something, and not just the initials.
We seem to have forgotten that we're obliged to be civil, even to those we disagree with.

I'm disappointed in the behavior of some of our members in this thread.
 
In my opinion, a gun control advocate who wants to civilly take part in our discussions should be welcome. As a member who sometimes holds an opinion different from the majority here, I can say were are a polite and welcoming group.

Isn't that what "The High Road" means?
 
"In my opinion, a gun control advocate who wants to civilly take part in our discussions should be welcome. "​

Welll--as many of us have found, they don't want to take part in our discussions. Many gun control advocates do not want to debate the points in our discussions. They want to state their opinion, and many of them have no rational structure of fact or logic to those opinons; it is what they feel. Further, they want to subjugate others to their position.

I've had better discussions of contentious issues with a turnip.

I also attempt to be civil--but my patience is worn thin with fools' arguments.

As for the question 'Define Anti:'

An "Anti" is someone who does not accept as A Priori premises that

1) all persons have an inherent right to self-defense;
2) that said right existed prior to writing the (U.S.) Constitution,
3) that such self-defense includes the use of a firearm, and
4) that under our Constitution, such right shall not be infringed.


Jim H.
 
An "anti" is somebody who:

Doesn't believe in an inherent right to keep and bear arms
Doesn't believe in the inherent right of self-defense
Believes in making firearms ownership as difficult and exclusive as possible

They have a variety of motivations:

power
status
bigotry
ideology
phobias about weapons

The AHSA type antis operate via stealth and deception. They pass themselves off as pro-gun when in fact they are a wholly owned subsidiary of the most extreme anti-gun organizations. They repeat anti-gun mantras verbatim.

When they come here they do so for one reason and one reason only, to deceive, disinform and to sew dissension.
 
What happens when antis come here?
Hell, pros aren't really treated all that well, and that's who the site is for.

"polite and welcoming group"...

I'm a new member here, and couldn't disagree with this more. There are some really nice people on here but they are invariably drowned out by illiterate knuckle-draggers that make antis look like paragons of wisdom.

Low Road nastiness and abusiveness seems to go unrestrained. I have never in 15 years of participating in gun forums been met with such shrill hostility, intolerance, and groupthink.

I've even been labeled as an anti for going against the status quo here. I've been told to leave, because someone didn't agree with my opinion.

As a lover of handguns, the thought of allying myself with some of the people on this forum has caused me to question whether I should just find a new hobby not infested with people I don't want to invest time on.

Instead, I've been spending time at a similar forum where the "personality" couldn't be more different. At this point I just feel sorry for the good people on this board.

Time for the mods to clean house around here, instead of closing every thread I start because they disagree with me.
 
Your posting immediately above, Mr. Whimsy, is a prototypical example of the example i gave earlier in which opinions are given--in this post, about other members--without a close examination of your assumptions about those people you find fault with.

Jim H.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
How law-abiding are you?
Replies
7
Views
582
rbernie
rbernie
M
  • Locked
Compromise with the Anti bloc?
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
3K
RimfireChris
R
J
  • Locked
Ever go on non gun political forums?
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
Aragon
A
M
  • Locked
Has Your Local Mayor Joined A National Anti-Gun Group?
Replies
8
Views
544
longbeard48
L
L
  • Locked
Dr. Seuss visits THR
2 3
Replies
55
Views
4K
jasonguerard
J
Back
Top