bnkrazy
Member
I thought you were done. Wow.
how do you define anti?
- Thread starter PT1911
- Start date
- Status
I thought you were done. Wow.
Mohawk
Member
An anti is someone who doesn't understand the meaning of the words "Shall Not Be Infringed."
LemmyCaution
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 897
An Anti is anyone who disagrees with my personal opinion on any RKBA issue.
Opinions on guns range from "no one should have any, even LEOs" to "I should be able to by a .50 cal MG at my local hardware store." There is irrationality and misuse of statistics on all sides. Any line between pro and anti is strictly arbitrary.
IMHO, however, there should be special place in the afterlife for people who yammer on for the cameras about any political issue for years and years without actually learning anything factual about it, and there are a number of well-known antis who should end up there.
IMHO, however, there should be special place in the afterlife for people who yammer on for the cameras about any political issue for years and years without actually learning anything factual about it, and there are a number of well-known antis who should end up there.
Anti's are people who talk about "gun violence" as if it was the gun's fault, while somehow not mentioning gangs and/or the War on Drugs even once. Sometimes I browse Brady's and VPC's websites for sh*ts and giggles, and I have yet to find one mention of gangs or the War on Drugs on either site. Brady's site did mention the high proportion of blacks killed, the probability that it might be due to a high proportion of black gang members seemed to escape them.
When you make an in demand product illegal, you create a black market. Black markets breed violence. It was true during prohibition, it's just as true today with the War on Drugs.
When you make an in demand product illegal, you create a black market. Black markets breed violence. It was true during prohibition, it's just as true today with the War on Drugs.
CoRoMo
Member
I refer to some gun owners, gun-lovers, and gunnies as 'anti' when they take one of the feel good positions that it is okay for the government to infringe upon the 2A in "reasonable" ways. There are a number of notorious members here who enjoy the perceived security of a forfeit liberty.
Example:
Hunters who don't care about bans in regards to magazine capacity, .50+ caliber, concealed carry permits, "assault" weapons, background checks, felon disenfranchisement, etc. simply because it 'feels' right.
Some gun owners are as much of the problem as Sara Brady herself.
Example:
Hunters who don't care about bans in regards to magazine capacity, .50+ caliber, concealed carry permits, "assault" weapons, background checks, felon disenfranchisement, etc. simply because it 'feels' right.
Some gun owners are as much of the problem as Sara Brady herself.
But here's the thing. Where exactly do you draw the line? Should anybody and everybody be allowed to own a M2 "Ma Deuce" without an extra stringent background check first or would registration for such weapons along the lines of the 1934 NFA be a better idea? Should people be allowed to own AT4s? How about Stingers? Morters? MK 19s?
You see what I'm getting at. I think most people here would say all small arms should be perfectly legal, even automatics. But does the 2A apply to crew serve weapons or IDF weapons?
You see what I'm getting at. I think most people here would say all small arms should be perfectly legal, even automatics. But does the 2A apply to crew serve weapons or IDF weapons?
travellingJeff
Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2007
- Messages
- 169
happygeek;
*edited to add the boldened "NO"* D'oh!
Anything that a standard field infantryman carries. AT4's and such could be maintained by the town militia at their barracks and used in general defense of the town. Of course, purchasing a M2 would be permitted. Why not It's not as if a man with a .50BMG single shot wouldn't be able to do a lot of damage, or a well trained man with 'just' a thirty caliber bolt action. It's not the machine, it's the man.
I have NO problems with people owning fully automatic weapons, privately in their homes or carried on their person (such as full auto sidearms). Machines don't kill people, bad men kill people. I can't stop bad men from being bad men, but properly armed with a weapon of my choice I can do what I may to stop his aggression.
*edited to add the boldened "NO"* D'oh!
Last edited:
inSight-NEO
Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 842
Tough question. It depends I guess. Are we talking about "anti-gun" in the political sense or "anti-gun" as relating to personal preference/opinion. As far as Im concerned, there can be a difference (essentially based on motives).
Regardless, when I hear the phrase "anti-gun," the close-minded, somewhat irrational, illogical and uneducated (in terms of firearms, their use and any statistics related thereof) individual comes to mind.
In addition, Ive encountered some "antis" who seem to base their beliefs on nothing but fear. This, of course, could be countered with a solid firearms "education," as well as enlightening such individuals with numerous statistics relating to violence against the innocent.
Regardless, when I hear the phrase "anti-gun," the close-minded, somewhat irrational, illogical and uneducated (in terms of firearms, their use and any statistics related thereof) individual comes to mind.
In addition, Ive encountered some "antis" who seem to base their beliefs on nothing but fear. This, of course, could be countered with a solid firearms "education," as well as enlightening such individuals with numerous statistics relating to violence against the innocent.
Last edited:
a real anti-gunner to me is a person who devotes time and lifespan to taking away gun rights from anyone possible - even themselves.
But from a general perspective, an anti is anyone who can/would tell me that I shouldn't have any gun for any reason and/or thinks badly of me, condescends me, or likens me to false stereotypes for having one, despite who I am as a person. This also applies to other gun owners who would do the same to other gun owners for owning something like a Glock or AR-15.
against guns/dislikes guns = someone who dislikes guns and would not mind seeing them banned - nothing personal to them for the most part
anti = someone who takes their beliefs and sees me like how a hardcore religious nut sees a homosexual or an atheist.
But from a general perspective, an anti is anyone who can/would tell me that I shouldn't have any gun for any reason and/or thinks badly of me, condescends me, or likens me to false stereotypes for having one, despite who I am as a person. This also applies to other gun owners who would do the same to other gun owners for owning something like a Glock or AR-15.
against guns/dislikes guns = someone who dislikes guns and would not mind seeing them banned - nothing personal to them for the most part
anti = someone who takes their beliefs and sees me like how a hardcore religious nut sees a homosexual or an atheist.
LibShooter
Member
An "anti" is someone who needs a gun owning buddy to take him to the range to show him how safe, useful and fun responsible shooting can be.
shotgunjoel
Member
No, there are people out there that think that guns are awesome (movies), but think that no one should have them. It makes zero sense, but I work with a guy like that.
Yes, sometimes they are called "Fuds." They usually shoot trap or skeet, go hunting, and hate AR-15s and think they should be banned. Think AHSA.
See above.
TexasBill
Member
Nixon, Reagan, Brady, Schwarzenegger, Romney, Pataki, Giuliani... the list just goes on and on.
The above shows that anti-gun people are not found solely in the Democratic Party. There are liberals who are pro-gun and conservatives who aren't so it's important to judge the person, not the party affiliation.
There are anti-gun people who simply don't like guns and don't want them. There are anti-gun people who also don't want anyone else to have them. Telling this last group about the Second Amendment is pointless. Years ago, a study was done where the Bill of Rights was paraphrased and presented to Americans for their opinion. The majority of those surveyed did not approve.
Last edited:
shotgunjoel
Member
Wow, if they truly believed number 2, then why can't people be trusted with guns?
mljdeckard
Member
People hate guns or fail to support gun ownership in varying degrees. I will specifically regard anyone who thinks society would be better if guns were banned is an anti.
A person who thinks that antis will only ban certain kinds of guns but spare their hunting guns is not necessarily an anti, but they are certainly a fool.
Fence sitters who don't feel strongly enough about it one way or another are to be exploited, educated, and pulled off the fence. Not all of them are going to become born-again-gun-people, but they may be persuaded to understand that anyone seeking to infringe rights is not to be trusted.
Dianne Feinstein loves HER gun but hates YOUr gun.
A person who thinks that antis will only ban certain kinds of guns but spare their hunting guns is not necessarily an anti, but they are certainly a fool.
Fence sitters who don't feel strongly enough about it one way or another are to be exploited, educated, and pulled off the fence. Not all of them are going to become born-again-gun-people, but they may be persuaded to understand that anyone seeking to infringe rights is not to be trusted.
Dianne Feinstein loves HER gun but hates YOUr gun.
ezypikns
Member
There are some folks here......
who believe you're an anti if you disagree with anything they believe.
Read a few of the previous posts here.
who believe you're an anti if you disagree with anything they believe.
Read a few of the previous posts here.
AR-15Nutt
Member
and i would bet you a $100 bill they rush to every violence prone movie that uses guns, they also watch every violent TV program on the air that uses guns.
oooh ! BTW, i agree 1,000% with the original poster.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
Why?
Anti can be accurately described
As an inverse reaction to personal responsibility
For life and limb of yrself and your loved ones.
Doesn't matter if it is machetes or machineguns.
So, dear readers, please trust
The gummint to handle all your problems.............
isher
As an inverse reaction to personal responsibility
For life and limb of yrself and your loved ones.
Doesn't matter if it is machetes or machineguns.
So, dear readers, please trust
The gummint to handle all your problems.............
isher
Bishop.357
Member
The word "Anti" depends on what context its being applied to.
In the case of "Anti-gun" it basicly means against firearms. I know it to be true that most people who are anti-gun don't know "Jacksh*t" about guns,all they know is what they've been told by biaised others or by the media. And its very hard to change their ideals on the matter because:#1, They are ignorant as to how guns are a tool and can be used for very good purposes and not just weapons that kill.
#2, The "Liberal" faction,(who I think are just nazis' wearin' smilely face armbands) relentlessly pound it into peoples heads that guns are evil,and if there were no guns there whould be no crime and no death. Which is just stupid if you take a moment to think about it. Example: Guns are a rather new invention if you take into account how long humans have been around. Many pre-historic remains found have shown skulls crushed by rocks and bodies stabed by speers. So to their way of thinking we should get rid of rocks and sharp pointy things as well? STUPID!!!
The next time you run into someone whos' anti-gun and they start ranting, remind them that without guns they whould'nt have the freedom to p*ss and moan about how evil guns are if it had'nt been for people with guns who put their life on the line to protect they'er rights to begin with.
In closing I'd like to say: AMERICA FIRST!!!
In the case of "Anti-gun" it basicly means against firearms. I know it to be true that most people who are anti-gun don't know "Jacksh*t" about guns,all they know is what they've been told by biaised others or by the media. And its very hard to change their ideals on the matter because:#1, They are ignorant as to how guns are a tool and can be used for very good purposes and not just weapons that kill.
#2, The "Liberal" faction,(who I think are just nazis' wearin' smilely face armbands) relentlessly pound it into peoples heads that guns are evil,and if there were no guns there whould be no crime and no death. Which is just stupid if you take a moment to think about it. Example: Guns are a rather new invention if you take into account how long humans have been around. Many pre-historic remains found have shown skulls crushed by rocks and bodies stabed by speers. So to their way of thinking we should get rid of rocks and sharp pointy things as well? STUPID!!!
The next time you run into someone whos' anti-gun and they start ranting, remind them that without guns they whould'nt have the freedom to p*ss and moan about how evil guns are if it had'nt been for people with guns who put their life on the line to protect they'er rights to begin with.
In closing I'd like to say: AMERICA FIRST!!!
Harve Curry
Member
Anyone that wants to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms.
CoRoMo
Member
Does this make sense to anyone else here? Not me.
The first sentence is contradicted by the following two.
Did you mean to place the word "don't" after the first word in that paragraph, or do you mean it as it reads?
Please explain.
Looks like a 'don't' was supposed to be in there.
- Status
