i don't understand the anti's hoopla

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good post, good experience. I can't imagine it happening that way in my area. Last month, I had the exact opposite experience while running security at our parish carnival. The pastor came to me with a concern that some parents had that I was carrying a gun! It only took them fifteen years to notice. Apparently it printed while I was sitting down for a break.
 
i ask this question partly rhetorically - in demonstration that a few armed folks in a park watching kids play doesn't guarantee a war, and partly because i simply don't understand their view. kind of like if you don't like something, then don't eat/buy/play/smell/whatever it, but don't tell me i shouldn't/can't do something just because you don't like it...

i don't know, maybe i am too laissez faire or something, but it just seems to me that that is the way things should be.

zundfolge was the first to respond w/ the control thing, and after reading several of the other answers, i think that may very well be correct - so that sheds some understanding. but, giving up control certainly leads to the confiscation of many of the freedoms and liberties we, as a nation, hold so dear... therefore, i'm not sure that control is the absolute answer.

in my view, and i do not know - which is why i asked, dmack seems to have nailed it perfectly. are we to believe then that all these anti's are completely, and totally irrational to their very core?? but mhdishere provides some insight that really backs up dmack's thoughts...

surely the majority of anti-gunners know that there are plenty of ccw's at events they attend? that these events don't get shot up, inspite the presence of guns? not long ago i carried my sig 229 to accompany my family to chuck e. cheese's. i am sure i was not the only one carrying - maybe i was - but still, nothing happened...

i gotta run to the store. seems i need some more components for reloading. and, i'll be carrying my s&w...

i just can't grasp the anti's angle, and it frustrates me.

pokey- yeah, i wish i had moved here years ago. i thought i knew freedom when i lived in los angeles and san diego. but, after i moved here, i understood freedom. been here 10 years now, and don't miss socal even a tiny bit - its more, much, much more than just gun laws. gun laws are just the start.
 
nobody got a second glance, cops didn't come and cuff-n-stuff, nobody got screamed at... nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...
Dude, you're in South Dakota.

Try it in Boston, MA. Its a whole nother country.
 
Why are the anti's this way?

1. There are many cold hard facts that show the mere presence of a gun in a home dramatically increase the chances that someone will die from an accidental gun discharge, and the chances of that occuring are much higher than those of your being victimized by guns.
2. Industrialized countries with stricter gun controls have dramatically lower violent crime rates.
3. Most people nowadays are not raised around guns. They know nothing about responsible gun ownership. Zero.

Realize I love guns, I own guns, and that I'm always about 2 steps from the doghouse with my wife because she was not raised around them like I was so she is afraid of them. I have them anyway.
But we as gunowners need to understand the gun-control crowd. Some act out of fear and ignorance. But some have perfectly valid, reasonable opinions on restricting gun ownership. I happen to disagree with them on whether we should implement these laws- I prefer freedom and its secure preservation through individual gun ownership, even as I recognize it contributes to higher crime and accidental deaths.
Understand the enemy, then you can more effectively battle them...or win them over to your side. ;)
-David
 
1. There are many cold hard facts that show the mere presence of a gun in a home dramatically increase the chances that someone will die from an accidental gun discharge, and the chances of that occuring are much higher than those of your being victimized by guns.
2. Industrialized countries with stricter gun controls have dramatically lower violent crime rates.
Click to expand...

Excuse me? Please link to these "facts"
 
1. There are many cold hard facts that show the mere presence of a gun in a home dramatically increase the chances that someone will die from an accidental gun discharge, and the chances of that occuring are much higher than those of your being victimized by guns.
Click to expand...

Surely you're joking!

The Kellerman study is a well-documented joke.

2. Industrialized countries with stricter gun controls have dramatically lower violent crime rates.
Click to expand...

Um, yeah, some. These countries also have fewer violent knife crimes. Could it be that the issue is cultural and not legal?

And then there's Switzerland and Israel, nicely industrialized countries, where you can't swing a cat without hitting a legal machine gun, and where violent crime is also very low.
 
I'm starting to be of the opinion that it's reasonable for there to be states where gun laws are pretty liberal (Arizona, South Dakota, etc) if that's how the majority of the citizens of that state want them to be. And the opposite is true of places like California, New Jersey, etc.

I mean, don't Schummer and Kennedy and Kerry and Clinton all come up for re-election? They must be representing their constituents. I'm assuming that includes their views on gun legislation.

If you want to be left alone with your gun rights, who are you to tell people who are anti-gun that they should change the laws in their states (or not vote their conscience on federal gun laws)?
 
If you want to be left alone with your gun rights, who are you to tell people who are anti-gun that they should change the laws in their states (or not vote their conscience on federal gun laws)?
Click to expand...

Thats the same argument many southern states had against the abolitionists.


The reason why as gun rights supporters we demand NATIONAL freedom is that a basic human right is not something that is determined by a majority vote.

Again I return to slavery ... it was wrong. Plain and simple it was wrong. Even if the majority of people in one state believed it was okay it is still wrong.



Post modernism has left too many of us able to stand up and declare "this is right, that is wrong".
 
The reason why as gun rights supporters we demand NATIONAL freedom is that a basic human right is not something that is determined by a majority vote.

Again I return to slavery ... it was wrong. Plain and simple it was wrong. Even if the majority of people in one state believed it was okay it is still wrong.
Click to expand...


That's an interesting analogy. You may think it's a basic human right, but the courts have decided against you. If citizens of California who want to buy a newly manufactured machine gun feel like their basic human rights are being infringed, they have a recourse. Not exactly working out for them though.

Which leads me back to my point. Besides the fact that you *feel* it's a basic human right, what's wrong with leaving it to be a state-by-state issue?
 
dakotasin:

I don't want to sound like a "Know it all", but I believe that you are missing an essential point, at least respecting the movers and shakers of the anti gun lobby.

I really don't believe that they care all that much about guns, whatever kind of guns one might mention. Rather, I believe that it's all a question of POWER to them, THEIR POWER OVER THE LOWER CLASSES, WHO OBVIOUSLY CANNOT BE TRUSTED. It is also ALL FOR YOLUR OWN GOOD.

I believe that be it guns, or abortion or prayer in the schools, that whatever the issue de jour turns out to be is simply a "hook" on which the real know it alls can hang their cloaks.

I believe that if and when this is recognized by The Huddled Masses, that a great step forward in the direction of combatting these know it alls will have been taken, for these know it alls must be kept separate from the power that they so obviously crave.
 
Just because the court thinks it isn't a basic human right, does make it so.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion that it's a basic human right, just like an anti is entitled to theirs. But the court controls whether or not you can go out and buy an AR-15.
 
The bottom line is, the people with the guns have the power.
The founding fathers felt the power should rest with the people.
If the goverment should become corrupt the people would have the tools for a recall of last resort.
Liberals feel that the goverment should have all the power.
So, no guns for you. :neener:



When talking to a liberal do not expect them to make any sense.
They have one simple rule.
Do anything, say anything, to advance the agenda.

K.
 
I don't think the court has the right to tell me what I can and cannot purchase, in the way of firearms. Just because some people in California don't like, doesn't mean I should be prohibited from owning what I want. If you don't like it, don't buy it, and leave the rest of us alone.
 
I don't think the court has the right to tell me what I can and cannot purchase, in the way of firearms. Just because some people in California don't like, doesn't mean I should be prohibited from owning what I want. If you don't like it, don't buy it, and leave the rest of us alone.
Click to expand...

You may not *think* that the court has a right to tell you, but that thought and $4 will buy you a cup of coffee.
 
True. But I don't respect any decision by the court that is clearly un-constitutional.
Click to expand...

Again, that's in your opinion. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has the final say. And whether you respect it or not, it's the law. Although I guess you could go down to your local gun store and explain the disrespect thing and your other thoughts and see how far that gets you.
 
My point is, the SCOTUS can be wrong. It might be the law, but it can still be wrong.
Click to expand...

I see your point, I didn't mean to be rude.

My point is that whether you or I *think* it's right or wrong, it's the law. States are given quite a bit of leeway in making their own gun laws. My point is that I'm not sure that's a bad idea. Other than a few individuals disagreeing, it's representing that state's citizens.
 
I open carry frequently. Mostly, because I can. If you don't like it. Tell someone that cares. I don't come across as someone you would pop off to about the dangers of firearms. I do have the occasional, "is that a Wilson"? :) In fact it happened last weekend at a local cafe.
 
Dave R said:
Dude, you're in South Dakota.

Try it in Boston, MA. Its a whole nother country.
Click to expand...

yeah, that's kind of the point i was making.

alan- in my quest for knowledge on these subjects, you don't come across to me as a 'know-it-all', nor will you offend me... i'm of the opinion that to beat the enemy, i need to understand the enemy. and clearly, i don't understand them. i'm firmly in the camp of 'if you don't like it, don't do it, and leave others the hell alone' camp... and i just don't get it, i guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top