Is it really "gun owners against anti's?"

[Dave TBG]

I've been lurking here for 6 month's or so but read something today that finally made me join so I could post. Unfortunately, as soon as I joined I found that the thread had been closed. It's probably better that this is it's own thread, it would have been a little OT in "Black Folks and the NRA."

Some good dialogue here, but too much calling folks on both sides racist now.

The hatred/stupidity that sometimes comes from folks of all sorts simply makes me sick. The antis must love that sort of infighting.

And again, please, it's not liberal vs conservative, black against white, polar bear against brown bear. It is gun owners against anti's.

I was in complete agreement with this comment, right up until the last 6 words. But when I stopped to think about the last 6 words I found myself rethinking my position in the entire comment. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, a conservative nor a liberal, I guess I am an "unaffiliated moderate." Likewise, between black and white are infinite shades of grey.
Clearly, the above quote was looking to contrast opposites, conservative and liberal are opposites, as are black and white. As a moderate, I am used to being part of the forgotten middle ground.
My problem with those last 6 words is that I don't see "gun owner" and "anti" as opposites. I personally know of many people who do not own a single gun but have no problem with anyone who does own guns and supports their right to do so. I also know people who do own guns but do not believe that everyone should have unlimited access to firearms and don't mind jumping through a few hoops in order to own their guns. Some would call that latter group both "gun owner" and "anti," while the former group is clearly neither.
I don't see gun ownership itself as being a defining characteristic, it's your view of gun control (or lack thereof that defines you). To me, the label "anti" represents the "nobody should own guns" crowd. The opposite of this is the folks that feel you should be able to purchase guns from vending machines, no questions asked, no ID required, etc.
I'm guessing that there are many Americans that fall somewhere between these two extremes. They are the shades of grey, the moderates. To tell these people that they must be either a "gun owner," and therefore, automatically, 100% against any form of gun control, or an "anti" who want's to take away everyone's guns, must be more than a little off-putting.
I've seen many threads here (and elsewhere) that wonder why there are 40 million gun owners but only 4.5 million NRA members. I suspect that there are a whole lot of gun owners who chose not to be represented by the NRA-ILA.

Keep in mind, conservatives usually vote conservative and liberals usually vote liberal, they cancel each other out. The outcome of any election is in the hands of the moderates who could go either way.

 

[ugaarguy]

Dave, in my experience the folks in the gray areas of gun ownership are few and far between. Not to say they aren't there, but they're rare. Most gun owners have also learned that when antis demand compromise, the pro gun side gets nothing in return. Hence it's not a compromise, but a gradual erosion of rights. The NRA threw the machine gun market under the bus to get FOPA passed in 1986. Because of that and some of their other history, there are many who feel the NRA doesn't go far enough in defending gun rights. This is why you're seeing the no compromise attitude on the pro gun side: Because calling any gun control legislation a compromise is a lie. So called gun control has been proven repeatedly not to work. Making it harder for the law abiding to get guns doesn't impact criminals who disobey the law to start with. It only disarms the innocent and law abiding, and makes it easier for criminals to victimize them.

 

[Walkalong]

Maybe I should have said pro gunners against antis, although I do not know any gun owners who are antis. Some gun owners do support some of the antis agenda, but not many and not much of it.

Many of us who have been on the pro gun side for many, many years have seen all the take, take, take, by the antis over the years, in the guise of compromise, while gaining absolutely nothing at the same time, and simply refuse to give any more. A line in the sand as it were.

Either way, my point was we will all succeed together, or hang separately. The antis are outstanding at the old divide and conquer theory.

 

[vamo]

Well just about every anti gun politician I write seems to "respect the 2nd amendment, and grew up around guns and hunting" and then goes on to add that we don't need "weapons of war" on the streets. So I guess that puts them in that grey area.

Or they're just saying that so they won't look like they're trying to ban guns while you know voting to ban certain kinds of guns.

 

[Sock Puppet]

I don't mean to offend, but it's been my personal experience that self-defined "moderates" on gun control are simply those who lack convictions or have not yet identified theirs. That doesn't mean one should fall into a "liberal" or "conservative" box, but claiming "moderate" status on specific issues is choosing to be willfully ignorant or weak.

You chose to categorize things in terms of "nobody should own guns" or "you should be able to purchase guns from vending machines, no questions asked, no ID required, etc". This gives some indication of the prism through which you view gun ownership.

Many of us here view gun ownership in a way that has been defined by being involved in the "debate" for many years. It's not a matter of guns as "things" that can and should be regulated, it's a matter of our constitutional and human rights.

 

[AlexanderA]

One word: "polarization." There's no reasonable middle ground on gun control -- not any more. For me, personally, the turning point came when the antis went after so-called "assault weapons" and magazine capacity. Those are the quintessential militia weapons, and if they are banned, the 2nd Amendment has no meaning. In a non-polarized world, I might have been sympathetic to some things like expanded background checks, but now that the masks have been dropped and we can see that the antis' ultimate goal is the complete disarming of America, I've gone over to the "no compromise" camp. There simply can be no discussion with the gun controllers -- they always take but never give. (I might add that I was a lifelong Democrat until the gun issue came to the fore.)

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

The real division is between individual liberty and collectivism. If you either do not know what you believe or are afraid to stand for one or another then you can be a "moderate", no disrespect just a factual statement. You either believe a human being has "certain unalienable rights" that he gained upon birth (and with those rights are certain unalienable responsibilities to respect the rights of his fellow man) or you believe that the collective good for the masses is the overriding factor even if a few individuals get eliminated in the process. A person who owns a gun for his own use but believes that others should be denied that basic right is a hypocrite. A person who doesn't own a gun and believes others should also be denied the right to defend themselves is ignorant (meaning he does not understand how the power structure of humanity operates). There are always divisions whether it is in regard to your dining preferences or living conditions and some governing authority does not have the right to impose its collective will upon the individual as long as that individual is not harming or intruding on another's rights so it will always be for or against, up or down, in or out. Those who are in the middle simply do not care to take a postion or they are unable to think clearly.

 

[Midwest]

Long post but I need to get some points across...

We need to be reminded of the proposals the anti's have made. Just a little over a year ago Feinstein was talking about a proposal to take an AR-15 and put it under the NFA classification. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ed-under-nfa-like-silencers-and-machine-guns/

The anti's really showed their hand in "BradyII", if you haven't read the list of proposals.
Here it is http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/brady2.html

"SEC. 204. FEDERAL ARSENAL LICENSE.

(a) Offense.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by
section 203(a), is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

"(x) It shall be unlawful for a person to possess more than 20 firearms
or more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition unless the person--

"(1) is a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed
dealer; or

"(2) has been issued an arsenal license pursuant to section 923(m).".

Here is pro-gun Kentucky we had a politician who wanted 3 day waiting periods to buy a gun. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...G-PERIOD-in-KENTUCKY&highlight=waiting+period


Other politicians here proposed draconian gun legislation to the point that it would have made NJ look like a Sportsman's paradise.
http://www.lex18.com/news/lawmakers-proposing-measure-to-reduce-gun-violence/


"Rep. Mary Lou Marzian, D-Louisville, and Sen. Kathy Stein, D-Lexington, will introduced identical legislation in their respective chambers to allow local governments to regulate firearms, prohibit guns from college campuses, and implement licensing of gun owners and registration of firearm and ammunition."

Even "Kentucky's top cop says he favors gun registration and assault weapons ban." Shocker? huh?
http://mycn2.com/politics/kentucky-...f-gun-registration-and-an-assault-weapons-ban

"Kentucky State Police Commissioner Rodney Brewer told Pure Politics he is in favor of more stringent checks and balances on gun owners and limits on the purchase of assault weapons and high capacity clips.

Brewer made the comments about guns — his first extensive public remarks about the subject — during an interview with Pure Politics last week. (Watch the interview about gun control below.)

His comments come as several Democratic lawmakers, Sen. Kathy Stein of Lexington and Reps. Jim Wayne and Mary Lou Marzian of Louisville, prepare to unveil a bill, which Wayne said will feature the provisions Brewer mentioned. Wayne wouldn’t reveal details of the bill before a news conference planned for Thursday at 10:30 a.m. in the Capitol.

The State Police Commissioner said the number one push should be to set up a gun registry system across the United States."



We have to be aware of what new anti-gun legislation the anti's are proposing and must defeat it in every way. They are not going to stop. We even had people post here on THR saying we should "compromise" with the anti's in order to keep the 'right to hunt' and have 'sport shooting'. The second amendment has nothing to do with shooting deer or target practice. I cringe every time I read posts like that and I hope the average gun owner is a little more knowledgeable than that.

And lets never forget that because someone might believe that they live in a 'pro-gun' state and then they are 'safe' in regards to gun rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. We need to only look at Colorado and see what the politicians did to contaminate that otherwise fine state.

 

[psyopspec]

Welcome to THR. It's easy to see you put a lot of thought into your post.

I happen to agree with you for the most part. For those who are pro-2A, it's easy to come to see things in black and white. And anyone who posts saying those on the sidelines of gun rights are a minority should open their minds a bit. Most of the non-gun owners I know are fine with gun ownership for law abiding citizens; if they are anti, it's with the understanding that the Second Amendment carries with it significant public health implications in the forms of crime. Those same people have an understanding that conversations centered around gun control should be focused on reducing violent crime, which isn't unreasonable and can be discussed in terms other gun control (such as more police, stiffer penalties, or addressing root causes such as poverty). A lot of moderates aren't apathetic; 2A simply hasn't had an individual impact on them. Treating them as hostile because they don't fully agree with someone's pro-2A view is counterproductive both to good discussion and to possibly convincing others to agree that gun ownership for law abiding citizens is a positive thing. Those who believe and act otherwise do so at their own, and pro-2A as a right's, peril.

Like yourself, the Republican party doesn't speak for me. Nor do the Democrats, or the pundits on MSNBC or Fox News.

 

[psyopspec]

We need to be reminded of the proposals the anti's have made.

This misses, or proves, an important point of the OP; there is a distinct difference between moderates who are generally apathetic or have little conviction, and anti-gunners.

 

[psyopspec]

A person who owns a gun for his own use but believes that others should be denied that basic right is a hypocrite. A person who doesn't own a gun and believes others should also be denied the right to defend themselves is ignorant (meaning he does not understand how the power structure of humanity operates). There are always divisions whether it is in regard to your dining preferences or living conditions and some governing authority does not have the right to impose its collective will upon the individual as long as that individual is not harming or intruding on another's rights so it will always be for or against, up or down, in or out. Those who are in the middle simply do not care to take a postion or they are unable to think clearly.

This is a perfect example of the black and white thinking in which anyone who doesn't agree with the side you're on is automatically an enemy. On behalf of 2A and the BoR as a whole, I hope you'll consider that there may be people who simply weren't brought up with a youth that was 2-A relevant, or are okay with gun ownership while not owning a gun themselves (a status that is both common, and overlooked in your generalizations).

 

[Mike1234567]

Sock Puppet... There's a huge difference between those with no convictions or retarded cognition and those with open minds. Often times those with strict convictions are self-impaired by severe closed-mindedness. It's our ability to listen, comprehend and offer fair and valid argument that defines our wits.

I can be persuaded... sometimes... but not on the issue of any kind of gun control. I won't get into other things I stand firm for and against but many folks would label me as a fence-straddler. I'm really not but my views don't fully align with right or left... and I'm not center either. It's just that some things are too important to compromise on no... matter...what. What's darned difficult for me is that the two crappy parties we "allow ourselves to be limited to" are both very destructive in some extremely devastating ways. No... I'm not a commie, socialist, Marxist, etc. I wish we'd respect and uphold the Republic our founding fathers built.

So, essentially, I agree with the OP. Everyone has a right to their opinion. Our founding fathers insisted on it. However, regarding 2A rights, I'll listen but I stand my ground.

 

[tuj]

DaveTBG: You are going to get flamed for your statements, but you are not alone in your sentiments. In fact, I think you are quite near the mark.

 

[ugaarguy]

DaveTBG: You are going to get flamed for your statements, but you are not alone in your sentiments. In fact, I think you are quite near the mark.

He better not get flamed by anyone on this board. This discussion will remain polite, and will remain a discussion. Let this be a formal warning that if anyone makes a personal attack on Dave TBG or crosses the line from discussion (even if heated) to being rude or intentionally inflammatory there will be consequences. If anyone else sees posts crossing the line use the little red triangle and report them.

 

[browningguy]

Is it really "gun owners against anti's?"

Yes, it really is. Anti's does not mean non-gun owners, it means people against you being a gun owner. So it really is "us" against "them".

self-defined "moderates" are simply those who lack convictions or have not yet identified theirs.

However this statement is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. I'm considered a political moderate by practically all the people I shoot with, in fact they often consider me a flaming liberal. Being a political moderate does not equate to 2A rights at all, but on items like gays - I just don't care what gay people do, it has no effect on my life whatsoever. I also believe that people are having a negative effect on the climate (and I'm a fairly senior person in the oil and gas industry), I'm not a Christian so don't take the bible literally and I believe evolution is a pretty good theory of how we got to where we are. The combination of my beliefs, mostly deeply held, make me a political moderate.

 

[gamestalker]

Sitting on the fence. Anyone who sits on a fence will eventually fall off in one direction or the other. The OP needs to get behind one or the other, his lacking perspective only demonstrates ignorance as to what our constitutional rights as a whole.

And I don't ever recall anyone fighting for firearms to be sold from a vending machine. That statement alone demonstrates a liberal analogy, they always go extreme in making comparisons. I'm surprised the OP didn't include statistics that have been manipulated in such manner that supports their claim, that guns are the problem.

The real problem is directly related to a failed justice system, poor parenting, and a lack of spiritual influence in today's society. Let law abiding citizens be free, and violent offenders either rot in a jail cell, or await their execution. No fence sitting here, just a straight forward opinion, no door #3.

IMHO, those who claim to be a part of the grey area, are really just uninformed and either don't care, or just don't want to care about our USA, key word here is OUR. Doing nothing is just as bad, as not taking a stand at all, because it gives the government all the power to decide for us.

GS

 

[geekWithA.45]

Here's a litmus test for folks who consider themselves to be "moderate" and "doesn't want to ban guns", but advocates "common sense gun control" to think about:

"I'm OK with_________________, but I don't see why any one needs a ________________, and therefore feel completely justified in invoking the full majesty of the law to enforce compliance, and agree that such people's lives should be destroyed, their bodies incarcerated, and their families impoverished for mere peaceable possession of such a heinous object."

You cannot divorce the first part of the sentence from the second part. If you're not willing to sign up for the consequence of your action, then you need to rethink your position.

 

[wgaynor]

Here's how I see it. you're either all in for supporting the RKBA or your against it. Sitting on the fence,... your against it because you will have your rights whittled away. Polarizing? yes. tell me what has not been polarized in these past few years. there is a great divide in the country. I can only pray that we'll survive this.

 

[Jason_W]

The us vs. them strategy is doomed to fail in the long run.

I'm at a point where I refuse to talk about 2A issues with anyone at all. It seems pointless to me. You're either preaching to the choir or beating your head against a wall. Trying to talk to an absolutist of any kind is an exercise in futility.

The best I can do is to be a gun owner that doesn't match any of the gun owner stereotypes. People are typically surprised when they learn I'm a recreational shooter and hunter. When I ask why they're surprised, an actual conversation often results.

 

[giggitygiggity]

My thought is that instead of just saying, "no, we want to keep our gun laws the way they are" when the anti's try to destroy 2A, we need to actively try to chip away at gun control laws... put them on the defensive. Make them nervous. Put pressure on them. We have been holding our ground. The best that can happen is that the status quo will remain the same... even in the last year, it is obvious that gun control has gotten stricter (NY laws, CO laws, CA laws, etc.). I'm sure there are examples of gun laws becoming less strict, but they are far and few between and probably only local municipalities. We need to take the offensive and bright the fight to the antis.

-Reopen the machinegun registry.
-No tax stamps or waiting for ATF approval.
-No magazine capacity restrictions, barrel length restrictions, etc. (As a side note, I find it ridiculous that if I were to add a pistol grip to the rail of a pistol that I've committed a felony unless I receive ATF approval first.)

 

[Jason_W]

Here's how I see it. you're either all in for supporting the RKBA or your against it.

And we should blackball anyone who feels differently, right?

Dissent will not be tolerated!!

 

[tuj]

This is why a discussion of this topic is well, circular and largely pointless. There are those who believe that the 2A protects everything from their Daisy to a 155mm howitzer. And then there are people who believe the 2A is something less than that.

The former are incapable of seeing the latter as anyone but "anti's".

 

[orionengnr]

Well just about every anti gun politician I write seems to "respect the 2nd amendment, and grew up around guns and hunting" and then goes on to add that we don't need "weapons of war" on the streets. So I guess that puts them in that grey area.

No. It makes them liars.

 

[danez71]

I don't mean to offend, but it's been my personal experience that self-defined "moderates" are simply those who lack convictions or have not yet identified theirs.

That doesn't mean one should fall into a "liberal" or "conservative" box, but claiming "moderate" status on specific issues is choosing to be willfully ignorant or weak.

.

Well... allow me to broaden your experience.

I have firm convictions that would generally fall into the 'moderate' category when compared to the far right or far left.

 

[Sam1911]

It is hard to be moderate, or to be respected as one. I've chosen "politically agnostic" as my self-description for some years now, seeing both sides of the official political aisle as bizarre caricatures of a proper government. However, on moderation...

There are issues I see in black and white terms, and issues that I see as very complicated and I realize I don't know enough to make a proper decision. That really is the very definition of "moderate" to me, in most political arguments. Simply someone who hasn't dug far enough into the issue to make a firm decision. Perhaps they even put a lot of effort into exploring the issue but were too sidetracked and dissuaded by counterpoints and the harder questions to think all the way through to a destination. They're still stuck along the road somewhere, and may never make further progress. I self-identify in this camp on perhaps 1/3 to 2/3 of the issues that rile the news puppets most nights.

Regarding those who are "moderate" or politically agnostic about guns, it is our job to educate and enlighten and help them to a better understanding of guns, the 2nd Amendment, and the underlying principle of the ultimate right to bear arms.

So, sure, there ARE moderates on gun control. But that just means we've got more work to do.