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."
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.
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.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.
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.