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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Post # 25 puts it into very clear perspective for me! So , rather than alienate and categorize the left from the right, or those who are self proclaimed moderates or agnostics, we should work harder on educating them. Most of the approach from the left is based on idealistic views anyway, the perfect world. We need to work on exposing the reality of the issue through explanation and common sense, and facts, and not by using personal feelings as the attention getter or motivator. But in this regard I guess I'm guilty, I get worked up every time I hear someone ignorantly blasting guns, as if they have a fact based opinion. But as post #25 states, we need to work harder.

GS
 
Sometimes some of the gun owners are our worst enemies. But mainly the anti's are uninformed or misinformed, except their leaders. They know what our weapons are and are not. The fool below them think a Barrett can bring down an airliner. So imagine an army of people who are misinformed or just ignorant and actually led by people who are quite intelligent and know how to use this to their advantage.
 
I do see it as "Gunnies vs. Antis".

While there is a middle ground somewhere, the anti-gun crowd seeks so abolish ownership of firearms. The active, as opposed to passive, gun owners are the only political or social force opposing them. The middle ground is completely uninvolved.

The uninvolved non-gun owners don't care if someone owns guns or not and will support whatever they feel is popular at the moment.

The uninvolved gun owner has his target gun, hunting gun or plinking gun and doesn't see why people are so spun up about "those other" guns.

So the dividing line is where the two involved parties meet, that would be the actively pro-gun and the actively anti-gun.
 
rdhood said:
Yes, it is the gun owners againt the anti's. There is no moderate middle ground. There is only further infringement that is possible. Look at New York or Chicago. That is what your "middle ground" gets you. The empirical evidence of the blue states and the anti gun movements in those states and cities of this country prove the point that the gun owners make: there is no middle ground. Where was the middle ground in Washington DC before Heller? Hint: you couldn't own a useable gun. Period. THAT is the middle ground that the anti's are reaching for. LET ME REPEAT THAT SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND FOR THE ANTIS. When was the last time you heard "moderate" antis wanting to loosen some gun laws? How about NEVER?

YOU, OP and others, want to paint this is a "middle ground" problem for gun owners. You have it all wrong. There is no middle ground for THEIR side. PERIOD. THEY will not stop. It is the stated intention of too many in the anti movement to get rid of all guns. PERIOD. In the face of that , we must stand against all further infringements, as there is not "middle ground" at which they will stop (again, see Washington DC, pre-Heller).



Sorry, but this is a Constitutional right. You up for some additional infringements on your other Constitutional rights? How about we start with your right to free speech? Or maybe we only quarter troops in your house for one weekend a month? And then when they have one weekend in your home... why not a whole week?

Save your "moderate" speech. That is the prelude to the next infringement.
Click to expand...
I have a date with a young lady tomorrow who's never owned a gun, but is okay with me having a CCW. I'll be sure to yell at her like you yell in your post to let her know that she has to pick a side. I'm sure that'll win her over. Same with my co-workers who have more pertinent political issues to vote on.

"We're at war! Pick a side!"
-Stephen Colbert
 
Well, there are folks like these - http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/artic...-level-in-NPR-of-gun-clubs-5107330.php#page-1

And there are the Pink Pistols...

In short there's a whole spectrum of folks who are shooters, for various reasons.

But those folks aren't antis despite their diverse political, social, etc. differences.

As I see it, not only do genuine antis not own firearms, but they don't want anyone else owning them either. Except of course for the few who take orders directly from them...

So it turns out they fail the ideological purity test. SOME guns are OK - state owned guns, or private security/bodyguard guns, but NOT guns in the hands of ordinary citizens. Antis are of the "OK for me but not for thee" approach. How many guns do Bloomy's bodyguards carry, for instance? Or the Secret Service details assigned to various luminaries?

It's cliché at this point, but no less true for that: gun control ain't about guns, it's about CONTROL.
 
rdhood said:
THAT is the middle ground that the anti's are reaching for. LET ME REPEAT THAT SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND FOR THE ANTIS. When was the last time you heard "moderate" antis wanting to loosen some gun laws? How about NEVER?
Click to expand...



Hmmm.... I am labeled a flaming anti around here and think New York, NJ, and California all have terrible gun laws. I will (and have) happily argue that many of our gun control laws are terrible and should be repealed.

I guess "never" was a bit to strong a word.
 
I have a date with a young lady tomorrow who's never owned a gun, but is okay with me having a CCW. I'll be sure to yell at her like you yell in your post to let her know that she has to pick a side.
Click to expand...

I never said anyone has to pick a side. I said there is no middle ground for the antis. They don't care squat about your young lady. If she has to walk through the wrong side of town, they couldn't care less. They would like to take her gun, too. She doesn't have to put up a defense to save her gun, and they will be happy about that. They are equal opportunity takers. Someone made a point that the "middle ground" essentially doesn't matter. The gunnies and the antis that don't feel strongly either way about increased restrictions, so they don't make it a voting or activist priority. That leaves the battle to the rest where there is no middle ground. And we are at the point in time where all "compromise" means the gunnies giving up ground. If you don't believe that is true, show otherwise. There is no middle ground. If you believe there is, then you have ceded the decision to others.
 
Last edited:
There is no middle ground for some of the anti's. Some of them want every gun out of private hands in this country. As noted above, they are comfortable with the people they "control" having firearms though. They fail to realize that one can only "control" the state in the same way that one may "control" a fire... meaning that it can easily surprise you while you're sleeping and burn your house to the ground. But I digress...

Having said that, this is won or lost in the "middle ground" that most people live in. We're all a bunch of gun guys (and gun girls), so we obviously have strong feelings. Likewise, there are those entirely on the other extreme of the debate who also have strong feelings. Then there are a whole lot of people who may have feelings one way or the other, but who can be swayed.
The question is, are those people swayed when we show ourselves as reasonable people who act respectful and responsible, even when we refuse to concede an inch? Or are they more swayed when we hop up and down and shout profanities back and forth at those who disagree with us (as I have seen done in a great many places)?
 
Go against your employer's expressed interests and see how long you keep your job.
Click to expand...

His employers (or at least his editors) had to sign off on the article before it went to print. It was only after the vitriolic rage started rolling in that they threw him under the bus. That's cowardice.

I'm fully aware that the first amendment doesn't typically protect a person from a private entity. My point is that I find it hard to align myself with any group of people who effectively have a form of thought police. I personally think it's wrong to adopt a strategy that aims to shut down (or more often shout down) any point of view that doesn't align 100 percent with what the rest of the herd likes. I simply refuse to try and punish someone because their opinion differs from my own.
 
Face it, the majority of people who post are very strong pro-gun and pro-2a people. We have that in common and are passionate about it. This thread, alone, is 90+ posts long and going strong. It has a lot of strong views.

The true anti crowd also have forums like this that go the other way. They see all guns as evil and want us to give up our guns so they can feel safe in their homes at night (why? I have no idea). They feel they have valid reasons for how they feel (right or wrong) and the media fuels their fears with misleading terms like assault rifles, weapons of war, hi cap magazines, etc. I'd bet 98% of these people never held a gun, let alone shot one for fun or pleasure. They see the gun as evil, not the person holding it. They won't change their opinions any more than we'll change ours.

I truly believe there are as many pro-gun zealots (like us) as there are anti-gun zealots (the true antis) where we cancel each other out. For ease of discussion, let's say that this represents 10% of each side.

Now we get into our labels. These hurt our causes as much as anyting. If you read these posts, you can see how it tends to divide us. Liberal, conservative, left, right, pro, anti, Democrat, Republican, pro-gay rights, anti-gay rights, pro-life, pro-choice, pro-God, Athiest, etc. There are as many labels as there are issues. I do not feel you can accurately pin a label on someone who takes a particular stand in one of the "groups" mentioned above. Today, someone can be pro-2A and anti-gay rights, pro-life and athiest, etc. You can't lump people into groups any more than you can say everyone who owns a gun is pro-2A and everyone who does not own a gun is anti-gun. It's not right nor is it fair. It forces people to make choices they normally wouldn't.

If we have 10% passionate pro-gun and 10% passionate anti-gun people (for discussion purposes) then that leaves 80% of the people as "fence sitters". So, we need to force 80% of Americans to make a stand? Seriously? We can't accept the people who are in the grey area about gun control?

I believe that this recent attack on our gun rights by this administration has turned many of us into one issue voters. I know it made me one. I will now look at how someone feels about gun control before they earn my vote. How many others have changed this way? Previously I would look at their entire platform. Gun control is now my #1 priority until we take back the rights we are losing. It is that important to me. However, I am passionate about my rights in this area.

Take the 80% fence sitters. They may be single issue voters but in other areas. It could be any other faction mentioned above. Maybe pro life/choice is more important to them than anything else. Their view on gun control is far down the list as important to them. It's not that they don't care, it's just that they have more important issues, to them, than gun control. They may shoot skeet or hunt once a year. It's a nice day in the fall when they go out. They enjoy it but they don't embrace it. It's not important to them to a point that it becomes the reason they vote for someone. They really don't care.

The point of all of this is we can't just label everyone on how they see gun laws. The people are too immersed in different causes to be called left or right, conservative or liberal, etc. Labeling is misleading as well as wrong. As many have mentioned, they are left on some issues and right on others and in the middle on even other causes. We need to find a way to make the 80% see how allowing the .gov to take away our 2A rights does affect them in ways not related to gun rights. If they take away one right, it's only a matter of time before they go after another right and then another. One of them may be more important to them than #2 and then they will take note. Not being pro-gun does not mean they are anti-gun. It just means they do not care which way the wind blows on that particular day.
 
Dave TBG said:
Wow, the replies are coming much faster than I can keep up. Somehow I missed a few but I'll catch up,
Mike1234567, Thanks, good comments
Tuj and ugaarguy, Thanks, life wouldn't be much fun without an occasional heated debate. I chose this forum because it seems to be the one that can handle a little debate without getting too "silly." I've been in a lot of debates on a lot of forums since back before there was an internet. So far I've always handled the flames and never been banned, I'm not looking to change my record.
HoploDad, Absolutely, but "holes in paper" is more my thing :)
Steel Horse Rider, I think our founding fathers may have been to the left of the British throne. It's all relative.
Click to expand...
The statement "I'm more of a paper punching kind of guy" worries me. Do you think we all
Desire to punch holes in something more sinister?
 
And that brings up a point wherein we distill the essence of the question: Will this individual hurt us, help us, or somehow act as a null element that truly does nothing one way or the other?

Someone can call themselves "anti-gun" 'till they're blue in the face, but if they aren't voting and working against ultimate RKBA, I don't care.

They can call themselves "pro-gun" but if they're voting for, working for, or "appeasing" those who want AWBs and UBCs, and "reasonable restrictions" they're the devil incarnate as far as practical ends are concerned.

If they really have no strong opinions (or a muddle of conflicting opinions which is more likely) that's ok -- but what is their effect on RKBA? If they're "moderate" on gun control but helping to put the Feinsteins and Schumers in office, they're carrying Satan's water no matter how pleasant and non-judgmental they may appear to be to us rights-valuing types. You may love me with all your heart, but if you're driving a knife into me -- guess what? You're the enemy.

Now attacking them personally won't fix the problem, but we have to persuade them to either a) see the damage they're causing and STOP IT -- vote against and work against the destructive candidates, laws, and entities, or b) just stay the heck home on voting day and truly get out of the way. In the end, that's all that's truly going to matter.
 
Politics has two dimentions. There's the left-right axis that we get really wrapped up in. Then there's the libertarian-authoritarian axis that we often forget about.

check out http://politicalcompass.org/

Most polititians (even many in the so-called "Libertarian" party), are more authoritarian than libertarian. They like control. Most citizens are libertarians. We believe in live and let live. Extreme examples of authoritarians include Stalin on the left, and Hitler on the right. It really didn't matter that they were on opposite ends of the left/right axis because the end result was people living under authoritarian tyranny.

I really don't care if someone tells me they are a Democrat or a Republican. Dems are more likely to be authoritarian about gun control, and Repubs are more likely to be authoritarian about lifestyle choices. Both are dangerous infringements on liberty. On the whole, I argue that the Democratic Party is becomming more authoritarian than the GOP. People often assocaiate becoming more authoritarian with becoming more leftist but they don't necessarily go hand in hand. People also often associate becomming more libertarian with becomming right-wing. That isn't universally the case either (Hitler was a monster because he was an extreme authoritarian, not because he was an extreme Righty).

My point to the OP is that focusing on being a moderate on the Left/Right spectrum my not be the most fruitful pardigm. Instead, it might be better to start from the perspective that you are an advocate of liberty, and that we need to maintian the RTKBA in order to defend liberty from authoritarian rule (aka tyrants). History tells us that tyranny can spring up from either end of the Left/Right political spectrum.

Geez...my posts are too long...sorry
 
I'm fully aware that the first amendment doesn't typically protect a person from a private entity. My point is that I find it hard to align myself with any group of people who effectively have a form of thought police. I personally think it's wrong to adopt a strategy that aims to shut down (or more often shout down) any point of view that doesn't align 100 percent with what the rest of the herd likes. I simply refuse to try and punish someone because their opinion differs from my own.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you, in the basic principle, but not in how you're applying it. If your neighbor wants UBCs, AWBs, or whatever, you would be in the wrong to go beat him up because of his beliefs. You'd be in the wrong to tie him up and duct-tape his mouth so he can't talk about his beliefs -- or even to stop him from buying ad space in the local paper to publish his views, if that's how he wants to spend his money.

Nobody punished Metcalf. He's not been imprisoned or fined. No one has come to his house and stopped him from talking and writing. No one has made it so he cannot publish his views (in fact, he has continued to, ... laughably).

He's simply no longer desired as either a high-profile representative of gun folks, nor as an entertainer in the employ of a for-profit magazine.

He wasn't entitled to his position. His status and salary were not his by right, but a privilege extended to him because his readers wanted to hear what he had to say. When he stopped offering good things and instead published a bunch of poor ideas and negative, backward, and destructive drivel, the readers contacted his publication and asked them to take away the rotten stuff and put something useful and positive in place of it. Give them a reason to continue to spend their money for that publication, in other words.

He won't ever admit it, but he's not been wronged in any way. He just lost touch with the people he was entertaining, and misrepresented the movement he was a (minor) leading member of. Having failed in his jobs, he was asked to not continue in that job.
 
Last edited:
Fred Fuller said:
Well, there are folks like these - http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/artic...-level-in-NPR-of-gun-clubs-5107330.php#page-1

And there are the Pink Pistols...

In short there's a whole spectrum of folks who are shooters, for various reasons.

But those folks aren't antis despite their diverse political, social, etc. differences.

As I see it, not only do genuine antis not own firearms, but they don't want anyone else owning them either. Except of course for the few who take orders directly from them...

So it turns out they fail the ideological purity test. SOME guns are OK - state owned guns, or private security/bodyguard guns, but NOT guns in the hands of ordinary citizens. Antis are of the "OK for me but not for thee" approach. How many guns do Bloomy's bodyguards carry, for instance? Or the Secret Service details assigned to various luminaries?

It's cliché at this point, but no less true for that: gun control ain't about guns, it's about CONTROL.
Click to expand...

And that pretty well sums it up for me. Look at everyone's complete agenda, how it is funded and carried out. There are a lot of hypocrites among us.
 
There are a lot of hypocrites among us.
Click to expand...

They justify it by saying they aren't single issue voters and that the anti-gun candidates they vote for are the better choice on "social issues".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
NRA Paradox
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
3K
LawDog
L
A
  • Locked
Gun Owners on the "Left" of center ...
2 3
Replies
62
Views
2K
JShirley
JShirley
C
  • Locked
How many of you would vote Democrat if not for anti-gun stance?
Replies
1
Views
696
Sam1911
S
A
  • Locked
Creating new gun owners out of many anti-Gun folks?
2 3 4 5
Replies
111
Views
3K
Robert
Robert
L
  • Locked
THR Anti-gun group?
Replies
6
Views
628
ArfinGreebly
ArfinGreebly
Back
Top