7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
Well done.
Happiness is FREEDOM. Everything else is icing on the cake.
Happiness is FREEDOM. Everything else is icing on the cake.
The Motives of Those Who Would Disarm Us
- Thread starter Dave R
- Start date
- Status
MacViolinist
Member
I agree with the control issues discussed above but I think there's another factor at work as well: plain old fear of the unknown.
Almost none of the Anti's I've met have ever held a gun in their lives. None of them have ever shot one. Three people that I know were hard-core Anti's and after a few reluctant trips to the gun range, the response has been the same. "These things aren't so bad after all. In fact, I kind of like it."
Fluke? Maybe. But I'd bet a lot of money if I had it that a quick trip to the gun range would cure a lot of Anti-gun sentiment real quick. And if not, well, accidents do happen.
-drew
Almost none of the Anti's I've met have ever held a gun in their lives. None of them have ever shot one. Three people that I know were hard-core Anti's and after a few reluctant trips to the gun range, the response has been the same. "These things aren't so bad after all. In fact, I kind of like it."
Fluke? Maybe. But I'd bet a lot of money if I had it that a quick trip to the gun range would cure a lot of Anti-gun sentiment real quick. And if not, well, accidents do happen.
-drew
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
Just remembered what was said to me by one raving (totally unconvertible, died in wool .... and dogmatic as they come) anti ...
''I'd rather be dead than handle one of those, let alone shoot one.
I just replied ...
''Where you live ... you just may get your wish''!
(lived in DC)
Then another similar version ...
''You'd not catch me dead touching one of ''those'' things''.
Required answer .....
''Nope - reckon you wouldn't''
''I'd rather be dead than handle one of those, let alone shoot one.
I just replied ...
''Where you live ... you just may get your wish''!
(lived in DC)Then another similar version ...
''You'd not catch me dead touching one of ''those'' things''.
Required answer .....
''Nope - reckon you wouldn't''
Smoke
Member
I think you guys are missing the mark....
I don't buy into the police state theory, the control theory or the envy theory. I think it is all about stupidity.
The MMM is composed of soccer moms that have never had any dealings with firearms other than maybe knowing someone that was killed with one - Guns = bad.
The government wants to fight crime to get votes. Guns are sometimes used in crimes - Guns = Bad.
The media brain washes the ill-informed with their messages of guns are bad and spinning buzz words to make things sound worse than they are. Yet the media consistantly gets it wrong. All they report is - GUns = Bad
How many in the VPC, HCI or Brady Bunch or any other anti groups could tell you the difference in an M4 or a Heavy barreled Remington and which is the better "Sniper Rifle". OR cares.
They are ignorant of the 2nd ammendment and its reason for being. They are ignorant of guns. If the population was educated that guns don't kill people of their own will, that defense is good, that the 2nd ammendment is not about hunting there would be less gun grabbing going on.
Art had the most on target post in my estimation.
Smoke
I don't buy into the police state theory, the control theory or the envy theory. I think it is all about stupidity.
The MMM is composed of soccer moms that have never had any dealings with firearms other than maybe knowing someone that was killed with one - Guns = bad.
The government wants to fight crime to get votes. Guns are sometimes used in crimes - Guns = Bad.
The media brain washes the ill-informed with their messages of guns are bad and spinning buzz words to make things sound worse than they are. Yet the media consistantly gets it wrong. All they report is - GUns = Bad
How many in the VPC, HCI or Brady Bunch or any other anti groups could tell you the difference in an M4 or a Heavy barreled Remington and which is the better "Sniper Rifle". OR cares.
They are ignorant of the 2nd ammendment and its reason for being. They are ignorant of guns. If the population was educated that guns don't kill people of their own will, that defense is good, that the 2nd ammendment is not about hunting there would be less gun grabbing going on.
Art had the most on target post in my estimation.
Smoke
ThreadKiller
Member
This is a good thread.
Thanks for the reading!
Tim
Thanks for the reading!
Tim
Mark Tyson
Member
No, I don't think they're stupid, not most of them anyway. The VPC damn well knows the difference between an "assault weapon" and an automatic rifle. They just use the term "assault weapon" to frighten people into buying into their agenda.
If you ask me, the motivation of the antis is simple: they value safety more than freedom. They don't value the right to bear arms, so they're prepared to give it away in the name of public safety. Many of them wouldn't dream of infringing on 4th or 1st amendment rights because they hold those rights in high regard. But rights that they look down upon are fair game.
It's just a question of values.
It's sort of like someone saying "I'm an atheist, so I'm not concerned if the government infringes on someone's freedom of religion." Or "I'm not on trial, so I don't care if the government tortures prisoners." And it's equally repugnant in my view.
If you ask me, the motivation of the antis is simple: they value safety more than freedom. They don't value the right to bear arms, so they're prepared to give it away in the name of public safety. Many of them wouldn't dream of infringing on 4th or 1st amendment rights because they hold those rights in high regard. But rights that they look down upon are fair game.
It's just a question of values.
It's sort of like someone saying "I'm an atheist, so I'm not concerned if the government infringes on someone's freedom of religion." Or "I'm not on trial, so I don't care if the government tortures prisoners." And it's equally repugnant in my view.
Samurai Penguin
Member
Hear hear, Mark!
For the record, I am an atheist. I think a belief in a god is silly at best, and in some cases is evidence of insanity. But I know better than to think I can stop someone from holding a belief I consider wrongheaded by attempting to oppress it.
A lot of people are confused when they hear me condemn the Waco atrocity. "Why do you care? They were just a bunch of religious kooks, after all." I tell them that the BD's lifestyle, in this case, is irrelevant. The bumper-sticker wisdom of, No one is free while others are oppressed, has some truth in it. If you can come after them for their beliefs, you can come after me for mine.
Even back in the day, when I didn't think I'd ever personally own a gun, I realized the futility of gun control, along with drug prohibition, anti-sodomy laws, and a whole mess of other things that the gov shouldn't be involved in. I mind my own business unless someone's person or property is being violated, and as long as you're doing the same, I'll stand by you when you're being attacked--whether I agree with you or not. Because that's what members of a free society are supposed to do, if they want to keep their freedom.
Too bad the anti's don't think that way.
Personal opinion:
Antis are divided into four groups:
1) Those that want control. This includes most fascists and socialists. These people realize that imposing their social agenda on the public requires that the public be mostly disarmed; otherwise there will be bloody and effective resistance. Many in this group tend to become leaders in the gun control movement, though gun control per se is not their driving force.
These people cannot be swayed from gun control unless you can change their socialist / fascist leanings as well.
2) Those that envy people who have guns. Not for their wealth, or even for their power, but for their self control. These are the antis who honestly believe that mere possession of a gun will cause people to become violent .... because that is what they would do. These are the people you hear about in the news, who get into fistfights at their kids sports games over a call the referee made or who run someone off the road and start a fight with them because they were flipped off in traffic. They have little self-control themselves, and what they have comes from fear of starting something they can't finish. They tend to be prone to substance abuse and addictions. They have an inborn desire to control others, because they cannot face a world where they would have to control themselves (as opposed to being controlled by laws and the threat of force).
These people need serious counseling before they can be swayed.
3) Those who view firearms as useful for hunting, law enforcement, the military and even self-defense, but who fear what others will do with them. These people have bought the "needs based" argument hook, line and sinker. They are usually afraid of some specific group of people (whites, blacks, minorities in general .....) and are willing to support gun control laws as long as they perceive those laws restricting that group more than they are. They are the fifth column among us, and are perhaps our most dangerous enemy .... because they masquerade as our friends. They are the ones hard-core antis aim at converting, with sound bites about how "no one needs an AK to hunt deer".
4) Those that fear firearms due to a lack of information or due to misinformation. They believe the lies regarding guns because that is what they have been taught. They often have little first hand knowledge of guns, and what they have was often gained in a manner that emphasized how dangerous / destructive guns were, and did not point out many uses for them other than hunting or the military. In their lives, they either have little need for guns, or they are so brainwashed that they cannot see the use for one even when they have the need.
These are the vast majority of fence sitters and antis. Thankfully, most are susceptible to reason. Most have so little exposure to firearms; they have almost no factual basis for their beliefs. Yet at their heart, most are thinking people. If you can gently correct their misperception on one single element of the gun debate, they will gradually come to question other parts of it.
Antis are divided into four groups:
1) Those that want control. This includes most fascists and socialists. These people realize that imposing their social agenda on the public requires that the public be mostly disarmed; otherwise there will be bloody and effective resistance. Many in this group tend to become leaders in the gun control movement, though gun control per se is not their driving force.
These people cannot be swayed from gun control unless you can change their socialist / fascist leanings as well.
2) Those that envy people who have guns. Not for their wealth, or even for their power, but for their self control. These are the antis who honestly believe that mere possession of a gun will cause people to become violent .... because that is what they would do. These are the people you hear about in the news, who get into fistfights at their kids sports games over a call the referee made or who run someone off the road and start a fight with them because they were flipped off in traffic. They have little self-control themselves, and what they have comes from fear of starting something they can't finish. They tend to be prone to substance abuse and addictions. They have an inborn desire to control others, because they cannot face a world where they would have to control themselves (as opposed to being controlled by laws and the threat of force).
These people need serious counseling before they can be swayed.
3) Those who view firearms as useful for hunting, law enforcement, the military and even self-defense, but who fear what others will do with them. These people have bought the "needs based" argument hook, line and sinker. They are usually afraid of some specific group of people (whites, blacks, minorities in general .....) and are willing to support gun control laws as long as they perceive those laws restricting that group more than they are. They are the fifth column among us, and are perhaps our most dangerous enemy .... because they masquerade as our friends. They are the ones hard-core antis aim at converting, with sound bites about how "no one needs an AK to hunt deer".
4) Those that fear firearms due to a lack of information or due to misinformation. They believe the lies regarding guns because that is what they have been taught. They often have little first hand knowledge of guns, and what they have was often gained in a manner that emphasized how dangerous / destructive guns were, and did not point out many uses for them other than hunting or the military. In their lives, they either have little need for guns, or they are so brainwashed that they cannot see the use for one even when they have the need.
These are the vast majority of fence sitters and antis. Thankfully, most are susceptible to reason. Most have so little exposure to firearms; they have almost no factual basis for their beliefs. Yet at their heart, most are thinking people. If you can gently correct their misperception on one single element of the gun debate, they will gradually come to question other parts of it.
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
Many more very good posts ...
Samurai ... some more good thoughts too and ....
Quaamik .. welcome to THR ... More good input.
The total content of this thread has grown to include some excellent material.
Mark ...... I'd add the small rider to that ''their version/interpretation of safety. These are people who live in the nieve cloud 9 world where rescue by the cops is always there and a bit of ''it'll never happen to me'' syndrome too ... so why worry?! Plus - they don't give much thought to freedom ... real freedom ... simply because they have their 2 cars, pay check, Saturday golf, wide screen TV etc .. all seems rosy if their own personal little cocoon seems fine. Bust their bubble and things might seem way different.
Samurai ... some more good thoughts too and ....
Quaamik .. welcome to THR ...
More good input.The total content of this thread has grown to include some excellent material.
- Status
