What Do The Anti's Really Want?

[Fake Name]

I look at guns, they, in most cases, are simple machines made of metal, polymer, etc, etc.

Then I look at the 2nd Amendment. It is very clear what it means.

What I cant understand is what the anti's are wanting to do by banning guns.

Does it stop at guns?

 

[robert garner]

When the blissninnys and barking moonbats prevail at the expense of the 2d, and it is a fact that only the criminals are armed.
They will extend to you an invitation to join them, in the land of merry.. to worship the great god "Disney" and all ,will be right, in the world!
As long as you don't think or speak for yourself, that's what your betters are for.
robert

 

[JWarren]

My take:

What the Anti's want:

1. A safe, peaceful world. They mistakenly believe that banning TOOLS will do it. They FAIL to understand that human nature is the true issue.

2. They fear people who have "power." They somehow equate having the ABILITY to do a thing as the DESIRE to do a thing.

3. They want the illusion of safety. I think at the heart of it all, anti's know that there is little that will make them safe, but denial makes for a nice security blanket.

4. Political antis: They need votes. They need to be percieved as doing SOMETHING-- even if it is meaningless. They sell their snake oil if it will get a vote.

5. They have been indoctrinated into believing the gun itself is capable of destruction in the form of randomly going off and killing people.

6. They worry for children and immature persons who may find a firearm left out and unsecured. Again, it is not the fuction of the firearm, but the function of the idiot that leaves it out.



Bottom line:

The only thing that will make the society that they want would be to ban:

-- Human Nature
-- Idiocy
-- Irresponsibility


But since another goal of the government is to make more and more people absolutely dependent on the government, the third of my above list lies in contradiction to other goals.



-- John

 

[Baba Louie]

World peace, lions lying down next to lambs making certain the lamb leaves the lion alive and well instead of causing leo harm? Or so it would seem.

 

[romma]

They want you to be as defensless as they are...

That way there is more prey out there besides themselves, so it buys them better odds...

 

[Phil DeGraves]

What they want is to have someone take care of them from the cradle to the grave. They do not want the responsibility of taking care of themselves. They also believe that possession of a firearm turns an otherwise rational person into a psychopathic maniac, like owning a sportscar turns you into an irresponsible reckless driver.
The political antis see this and want control over everyone. Anyone that is armed can act independently, and can be responsible for their own safety. The antis can't control people that are willing to be responsible for themselves so they do not want anyone to be armed.

 

[v35]

People in power crave control. They want control over you and everything you do. Control over you makes you dependent upon them and perpetuates their existence.

Antis use emotional arguments to lure useful idiots to champion their side but gun control in all its forms has nothing to do with guns, violence, or crime. It's been proven time and time again restrictions have either no effect, or an inverse effect on society's ills.

It's the essence of collectivism: cede your freedom to others so they can take care of you. It makes them indispensable and makes you a serf. It's also the sad legacy of most human history, and it spans Biblical times to the recent banking bailout.

No amount of restriction will EVER satisfy the antis. They will ALWAYS want more. This is why pro-RKBA types like us bristle at even the most innocuous-seeming restrictions (One gun a month? Registration? Microstamping? Ammo serialization? Taxes?). Our freedoms haven't been given up all at once, and they will never appear to be except in the context of history. Notice I said "given up". Freedoms aren't taken, they are voluntarily thrown away, through apathy, lack or education, whatever. We dig our own graves, and jump right in. We're just digging with spoons.

Control. Look at it from that perspective and everything else makes sense.

 

[qwert65]

half want to feel safe the other want control/power

 

[Blackbeard]

I think there are different motivations for being an anti:

- Twits, who are rich, liberal socialites who want to sound intelligent and be perceived as caring by their fellow twits at cocktail parties. Many "journalists" fall into this category.

- Politicians, who just want votes and believe that the majority is so ill-informed about the way the world works that they'll eat up their anti-rhetoric with a spoon. Frequently, they're right.

- Victims, who are friends or relatives of someone killed by a gun in a crime and believe that their loved one would still be alive if guns were never invented. They think that banning guns is the same as de-inventing them.

- Morons, who just don't know or don't care what goes on in the world, whose biggest concern is what nightclub to go to on Saturday night, and whether Tom & Katie's marriage will last. They're willing to believe anything they hear on the news, because its easier than thinking. These are the people who end up voting for the Politicians above, if they even vote.

 

[Vermont]

Let's be honest here. They want the same thing we want: To be safe. They believe that reducing the number of guns in the country will help them be safer.

The people who disagree with us on this issue aren't evil fascists or elitist snobs. Most of them are people like us who want their kids to be safe when they go to school or walk down the street. You could argue with an anti all day about gun control, but when it comes down to it, you are both arguing about what is the best way to keep us safe.

It is easy to dismiss someone's position when you believe they have bad intentions. But dismissing the position of the other side will not help our cause.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Most post in this thread offer yet another great example of the superior intellect and advanced rationality of the pro side of the debate. Let me sum up all the posts so far (except for Vermont's):

• "Look guys, I called them blissninnys! They are so stooooopid!"
• "You called them twits and morons! We'll just kicking butt here."
• "Anti's are fart-faces! Anti's are fart-faces!"
• "Anti's are stupider than stupid. They are so stupid that even they go smart they'd be stupid."
• "Pro's go to college to get more knowledge, anti's go to Jupiter to get more stupider!"

I have to say that read Vermont's post with shock - a post that doesn't sound like it came out of third grade recess! Not only that - he's right!

Let's be honest here. They want the same thing we want: To be safe. They believe that reducing the number of guns in the country will help them be safer.

You nailed it, Vermont. Most anti want the same things we want - but they differ in how to get there. The statistical data doesn't show that either approach is successful, so its a hard issue.

Calling names doesn't make it an easy issue.

Mike

 

[BattleChimp Potemkin]

By calling Antis stupid, we stoop to their level by using thier greatest tool: emotional appeals. If the Anti's are so stupid, then why are they always ready with statistics (while maybe wrong, they present them to the people that are either in charge or follow those in charge). They are like smart bombs; they use disinformation in very precision fashion to achieve their target.

Whether they make up or actually have good statistical data is not the issue. Its how they use it, who they target with it and how it is manipulated by those in power to scapegoat someone to get a few more points in their polls. Remember, politics are like huge faceless corporations as in they care for only one thing: Profits/points. They will rape the earth, scortch the skies and poison our children to get their goals met. They will bomb middle eastern villiages after "terrorists" killing lots of bystanders in the process, then proceed to tell us that they are our enemy. What is the difference in their anti-gun rationale? They arrest and harass law abiding gun owners in an attempt to get the ever ellusive "criminals" not understanding that they perpetrate the greatest crimes in history themselves.

The world is an ever continuing balancing act. We may, one day, have to give up certain gun concepts to keep the whole. But act NOW so that does not happen.

I always bring this up when Antis are in the question: Remember what Freud said about weapons? Also, remembering Freud, look up what serial killers cannot do. You will find a shocking correlation! <non-High Road comments off>

 

[geekWithA.45]

Having studied the issue for years, I do believe that there are some that are using and manipulating the antis in furtherance of their own dark motives.

Most, however, are what I call "seekers after Good", rather than "seekers after Evil".

These are folks whose only desire is the Goodness they seek to bring forth, but they are blind to the dangers of the means with which they propose to do it, and misguided as to how exactly their proposals would bring about the good they seek.

What they want is a world filled with sunshine and safety.

They're not going to get it.

 

[esq_stu]

They want government control. They simply accept as an article of faith that government will solve all their problems.

 

[Pilot]

half want to feel safe the other want control/power

X2. That says it all for me.

 

[Deanimator]

They want CONTROL. Guns are just part of that.

Look at Chicago and you'll see where they're headed.

Fortunately, the country as a whole seems to be going the opposite way.

Here in Ohio, we recently ditched almost every gun law below state level, and there aren't many state gun laws.

 

[Deanimator]

Most, however, are what I call "seekers after Good", rather than "seekers after Evil".

The path to that sign that says "Arbeit Macht Frei" is paved with good intentions.

 

[fjolnirsson]

As a former Anti...

Allow me to chime in here.

I'm certain most of the politicians pushing gun control are doing it for political gain. Some of the more vocal antis, I'm sure, get a thrill out of the power their advocacy gives them.

Joe six pack? Well, I can tell you, there's an overwhelming amount of anti-gun propaganda out there, being peddled by the schools, media and government. When you grow up in a government indoctrination center, being taught that guns, pictures of guns and chicken pieces shaped like guns are bad, you tend to agree. Particularly when you aren't taught critical thinking skills in that same indoctrination center. It takes a lot to overcome those teachings received as a child.

I will echo Vermont and RPCVYemen by saying that calling them names isn't the answer. We have to fight this a little bit at a time, and not just on one front. Education is the key. Be friendly and informative. It may be necessary to teach logic before approaching the issue of guns. Influence the school boards, or keep your kids out of public schools, even better. If people are taught that guns are bad at an early age, that is what they will believe.

 

[Focke-Wolf]

'They' don't want the image of you being able to defend yourself.

 

[IllHunter]

From gun control central...

this is almost right...

Let's be honest here. They want the same thing we want: To be safe. They believe that reducing the number of guns in the country will help them be safer.

The actual truth is: They want to "feel" safe and cannot distinguish that feeling from the position of "being" safe. The blur was begun with the abrogation of the responsibility of defending the family from the father figure to the mother (Womens Lib) and thence from the females to the state (police). This happens most easily in the close in environs of the city, with the tight confines of multi-family housing and crowded neighborhoods. The power structure (government) readily moved into the protection business, promising safety but not delivering, except for the richest, most prominent citizens. The father figure mostly disappeared and the children were on government supports for all their lives. With no good male influence through puberty, gang affiliations swell and coming of age shifted from fist fights to drive-bys. In the first three months of this year (2008), 20 Chicago public school students have been killed, many more wounded. This despite draconian gun bans that have been in place for more than a generation.
Now, the media are on board, supporting the gun bans as if they were the Emperors New Clothes. Activist priests and community leaders refuse to blame the criminal and find the spotlight and livlihood supporting the politicians and their control agendas. Both see the violence and refuse to accept that the social order has spawned these predatory kids and that their communist socialist agenda has failed, miserably. Until successful black males stop fleeing the families they procreate and until the system stops rewarding procreation and starts penalizing violent criminals, the violence will continue to escalate. IMHO the bravest young urban males act to remove themselves from the scenario of their homes and some join the military. Some find there the discipline to use their aggressiveness and channel it for good. Others don't and return to depression and drug use with the added dimension of being trained in arms. Those that remain join gangs to survive and there again, some do some don't. They also are prone to encounter the criminal justice system, which doesn't help them become a productive member of society. Just my spin, sorry if I rant, but this tuning fork is exactly my key.

 

[Pilot]

The want to feel enlightened, intellectual, progressive and above all better than you and me. They want to be "evolved".

 

[Fake Name]

It seems that

the anti's don't separate fact from feelings and history from a utopia.

It has been my experience that the anti's that I have run into feel that modern society is smarter and more enlightned than previous generations.

I guess the old saw is still relevant when it comes to gun control - Those who dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Vermont]

The actual truth is: They want to "feel" safe and cannot distinguish that feeling from the position of "being" safe.

I disagree. They probably believe that their methods will make them safer. Whether that is true or not is up for debate and obviously I disagree, but I don't think they just want to FEEL safe. I think they actually want to BE safe.

geekwitha.45,
Good Post. There are certainly some "seekers of evil" out there on the anti side. I can't disagree with that. But there are some of those on the gun rights side of the debate too.

 

[RPCVYemen]

What they want is a world filled with sunshine and safety.

Me, too.

It might be worth figuring out what we share with people who propose more control over weapons - other than a absolute dearth of reliable statistics that support our position.

• We and they abhor violent crime.
  
• We and they abhor truly accidental deaths due to firearms.
  
• We and they abhor the recent apparent rash of shooting sprees where a disturbed individual armed with a handgun and/or long guns kills a number of innocent people.
  
• We and they agree that handguns in particular have characteristics that make them particularly effective for the perpetration of violent crime - lethality, portability, and concealability.
  
• We and they agree that the characteristics that make handguns particularly effective for the perpetration of violent crime make handguns somewhat effective stopping/preventing a some violent crimes.

Does anyone object to anything on this list?


Mike

 

[yhtomit]

JWarren wrote (in part):

2. They fear people who have "power." They somehow equate having the ABILITY to do a thing as the DESIRE to do a thing.

JWarren's list is a sympathetic one -- shows how alluring and (out of context) "reasonable" some of the anti-motivations can be. For this item in particular on his list, I think it's worth pointing out that they fear "people who have power," Yes, on the basis that power is readily abused, etc -- but they don't generally see themselves as "people who have power," even when that's the case. My impression: They see themselves as plucky underdogs fighting hidebound, short-sighted, unfeeling, dark-souled purveyors of violence and hate, at least in this context.

(If I may scramble an omelet of an analogy, it's a bit like Rush Limbaugh fans who believe that a highly popular, long-running, chock-full-of-advertising program franchised nationally is something other than "mainstream" )

timothy