What Do The Anti's Really Want?
- Thread starter Fake Name
- Start date
- Status
misANTHrope
Member
It's sort of a broad question- as has been mentioned, I believe there are different motives depending on whether you're considering a politician like Feinstein, a celebrity like Rosie, or just some average Joe off the street. I'm just going to focus on that average Joe for this diatribe, though I think much of it is applicable elsewhere.
I think that several have already covered my first point fairly well- namely, the citizen anti wants peace, freedom from violent crime, and safety for himself and his loved ones. So why do these folks come up with such a vastly different approach to achieving these goals? I think that if we dig deep, it all comes down to preconceived notions about the human race.
I think that deep down inside, every person wants to believe thateveryone wants the same thing they do- peace, freedom from violence, etc. They want to believe that each and every person is ultimately good. And if one has a high enough attachment to this belief, then they believe that a bad actor is a product of outside influence. That is, if they can remove he bad influence, then suddenly the innate good in the person will shine through, and once this is applied to the entire race, the world will become a utopia and sunshine will fill our lives.
In its own way, it's a passionate and attractive vision- it achieves the desired goal, and does it in such a way as to not violate the belief in the innate good of humanity. However, there always have been, and I believe always will be, individuals who have no concern for living in harmony with others. I do believe that many of these people are a product of outside influence, and that a number of them are able to be "fixed," so to speak. But there still remains the number who will habitually leverage their power over others for personal gain. This must be controlled.
And so we have it- on one side, the belief that evil is a flaw that can be controlled and eradicated, and on the other side, the acceptance of said evil and the dedication to control it. To them, we're at best too pessimistic to fit into their world vision, just as they're too optimistic to fit into ours.
The reality for me is this: regardless of how possible it might be to turn every bad guy into a flower-growing sunshine factory, it hasn't happened yet. Bad guys continue to walk the streets, continue to assert their will on the weak, continue to victimize. And so I take my position, namely that when an individual threatens the life of another, he forfeits his own right. It doesn't matter whether he might be rehabilitated or mentally "fixed" or whatever- when he's using the threat of death to extort, the only options are to submit and hope, or to fight.
I choose to fight.
I think that several have already covered my first point fairly well- namely, the citizen anti wants peace, freedom from violent crime, and safety for himself and his loved ones. So why do these folks come up with such a vastly different approach to achieving these goals? I think that if we dig deep, it all comes down to preconceived notions about the human race.
I think that deep down inside, every person wants to believe thateveryone wants the same thing they do- peace, freedom from violence, etc. They want to believe that each and every person is ultimately good. And if one has a high enough attachment to this belief, then they believe that a bad actor is a product of outside influence. That is, if they can remove he bad influence, then suddenly the innate good in the person will shine through, and once this is applied to the entire race, the world will become a utopia and sunshine will fill our lives.
In its own way, it's a passionate and attractive vision- it achieves the desired goal, and does it in such a way as to not violate the belief in the innate good of humanity. However, there always have been, and I believe always will be, individuals who have no concern for living in harmony with others. I do believe that many of these people are a product of outside influence, and that a number of them are able to be "fixed," so to speak. But there still remains the number who will habitually leverage their power over others for personal gain. This must be controlled.
And so we have it- on one side, the belief that evil is a flaw that can be controlled and eradicated, and on the other side, the acceptance of said evil and the dedication to control it. To them, we're at best too pessimistic to fit into their world vision, just as they're too optimistic to fit into ours.
The reality for me is this: regardless of how possible it might be to turn every bad guy into a flower-growing sunshine factory, it hasn't happened yet. Bad guys continue to walk the streets, continue to assert their will on the weak, continue to victimize. And so I take my position, namely that when an individual threatens the life of another, he forfeits his own right. It doesn't matter whether he might be rehabilitated or mentally "fixed" or whatever- when he's using the threat of death to extort, the only options are to submit and hope, or to fight.
I choose to fight.
Snapping Twig
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 655
IMO, it depends on who the anti is.
Among the civilians, it's a mixture of different motivations. There is the true believer, the over educated immature and the political subversive.
Anti politicians similarly are collectivists (communists), socialists and the generally corrupt.
Ask yourself if the government will ever give up THEIR firearms. The honest answer is obvious.
History is an excellent teacher if we choose to honor it. Every time weapon control has been enforced, tyranny has resulted - without exception, from field tools to firearms.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, written plainly and easy for the common man to understand are marvalous documents. Perhaps our government should actually read them now and again.
Among the civilians, it's a mixture of different motivations. There is the true believer, the over educated immature and the political subversive.
Anti politicians similarly are collectivists (communists), socialists and the generally corrupt.
Ask yourself if the government will ever give up THEIR firearms. The honest answer is obvious.
History is an excellent teacher if we choose to honor it. Every time weapon control has been enforced, tyranny has resulted - without exception, from field tools to firearms.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, written plainly and easy for the common man to understand are marvalous documents. Perhaps our government should actually read them now and again.
I think you are on the right track, and there are some antis that would agree with you. But I think that there are others who would focus on who has the guns. Let me suggest the following assertions:
- If no one had a handgun, then no handguns would be used to commit violent crimes.
- If no bad guys had guns, then then no handguns would be used to commit violent crimes.
- If only police had guns, then almost no handguns would be used to commit violent crimes. This can be derived from the preceding assertion, and the assertion that most police are good guys.
- If only the police had guns and one bad guy in the whole US had a gun, then almost no handguns would be used to commit violent crimes.
- If only the police had guns and two bad guys in the whole US had a gun, then almost no handguns would be used to commit violent crimes.
- If only the police had guns and three bad guys in the whole US had a gun, then almost no handguns would be used to commit violent crimes.
- On and on and on.
- In general, the number of violent crimes committed with handguns in the US is probably proportional to the number of bad guys who have handguns.
- If we disarmed enough bad guys, then the number of violent crimes committed with handguns would diminish to zero.
I have no trouble with any of those assertions, and I suspect most anti's and pro's would find them unobjectionable.
I think the major disagreement has to do with the problem that the only way to accomplish #9 disarms good guys a well as bad guys - in fact, disarming bad guys without disarming good guys very hard task to implement.
Mike
Zundfolge
Member
Time to trot out my oft repeated breakdown of antis. 
You have for basic classifications of people who support gun control:
The Duped are the largest and easiest to "convert" ... if what some of the so-called "Pro Gun Progressives" that post in these forums say is true, a shift in the attitudes of most Democrats would likely convert a lot of The Partisans (but I just don't believe the DNC will ever go pro-gun).
The Hoploophobes might be "convertible" with therapy (but they would have to want to change) ... and The Power Seekers ... we'll there's only one solution to them; remove them from power.
You have for basic classifications of people who support gun control:
- The Duped: The majority of people who say they support gun control or vote for anti-gun candidates ... these people have bought the lies told by the gun control movement. They honestly believe that gun control would make us safer. There is hope to turn these people to the truth as they are just lied too and not committed to believing the lies because of other personal reasons like groups 2 & 3 (and they are by far the largest group).
- The Partisans: They are Democrats/liberals/progressives ... and their party says "guns are bad"...or more to the point "those who support gun rights are our enemy" so they support gun control and vote for anti gun candidates. These people are pretty much unreachable unless Republicans became pro gun control. Most could care less one way or the other whether guns are legal, illegal, restricted, or whatever (although most are partially duped and I'm sure there are plenty Hoplolphobes among them too).
- The Hopolophobes: just simply people with an irrational fear of guns ... they are unreachable. Therapy for their phobia is required. (this is a somewhat small group ... smaller than 1 and 2).
- The Power Seekers: These are the Schumers and Feinsteins ... these are the leaders of the movement who know guns aren't bad but know they can't implement their other diabolical plans against us as long as we're armed (this is actually a very small group ... even most anti-gun politicians are just Partisans, Dupes and/or Hopolophobes, only a very select few are trying to enslave us).
The Duped are the largest and easiest to "convert" ... if what some of the so-called "Pro Gun Progressives" that post in these forums say is true, a shift in the attitudes of most Democrats would likely convert a lot of The Partisans (but I just don't believe the DNC will ever go pro-gun).
The Hoploophobes might be "convertible" with therapy (but they would have to want to change) ... and The Power Seekers ... we'll there's only one solution to them; remove them from power.
Titan6
member
There is no one answer. Kind of like asking what our side "wants". We are likely a more diverse crowd though as more of the individualist type join the pro rights side.
GhostlyKarliion
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2006
- Messages
- 426
Hoplophobia is a mental disorder
just like arachnophobia or hydrophobia
most anti's, I believe, are genueinly sick.
They arent something to be feared, but they arent something to be coddled either, they are sick people and need to be treated for their condition.
there are some anti's, albeit I believe few in comparison, who suffer from megalomania. These people want power, they honestly don't consider you or your rights, in their eyes you are nothing but something else for them to control.
the first need help, the latter need --non THR comment witheld--
just like arachnophobia or hydrophobia
most anti's, I believe, are genueinly sick.
They arent something to be feared, but they arent something to be coddled either, they are sick people and need to be treated for their condition.
there are some anti's, albeit I believe few in comparison, who suffer from megalomania. These people want power, they honestly don't consider you or your rights, in their eyes you are nothing but something else for them to control.
the first need help, the latter need --non THR comment witheld--
I think the antis fall into two groups. The first group believes in a place called “Perfect.” They tend to believe in utopias and that if certain causes are simply removed, the effect will be removed as well. There can be no gun crime if there are no guns, right. If you ban guns (cause) then you reduce crime (effect).
The second group is more practical. They acknowledge that crime will happen, gun or no gun, but believe that some guns do make crime easier or criminals more brazen due to available firepower. They say stuff like “it is harder to kill 5 people at the same time with a knife.” In this utopia it is mass murders that disappear because of mag caps or specific weapon type bans.
The second group is more practical. They acknowledge that crime will happen, gun or no gun, but believe that some guns do make crime easier or criminals more brazen due to available firepower. They say stuff like “it is harder to kill 5 people at the same time with a knife.” In this utopia it is mass murders that disappear because of mag caps or specific weapon type bans.
yokel
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
Gun control directly impacts the most independent, self reliant, and free thinking amongst us as demonstrated by our refusal to proxy our personal protection out to an unaccountable government.
Down their path is mob rule, and everything our adversaries stand for is anathema to liberty.
Down their path is mob rule, and everything our adversaries stand for is anathema to liberty.
I would have to guess that they want to rule over you.
What do all dictators, tyrants and warlords and criminals want.
In short, " Your money or your life "
This is only my guess.
I have not had the privilege of looking inside the head of any anti's.
What do all dictators, tyrants and warlords and criminals want.
In short, " Your money or your life "
This is only my guess.
I have not had the privilege of looking inside the head of any anti's.
Actually, the only magical thinking that I ever encounter about gun legislation is on THR - and not from antis!
No anti I have ever encountered believes that they will create "Perfect" with gun legislation. Most will argue that restrictive gun legislation will decrease criminal access to guns. That is not supported by data (any more than our side is), but it's not describing a "Perfect" world, but (if they were correct) a better one.
No anti I have ever encountered has ever claimed that mass murders or any kind of crime will "disappear" due to any gun legislation.
Is our argument so weak that we have to make theirs more extreme?
Mike
xd9fan
Member
control...slavery.....
PinoyInFL
Member
I think its POWER! Antis want to be in POWER and they want to stay there. Gun owners are able to defend themselves and hence, do not depend as much on govt. for their own safety. This makes antis very uncomfortable. The antis want the people to be dependent on govt. for everything and they want people to believe that they are helpless w/out govt. By taking away all the guns from law abiding citizens, criminals will have a free-for-all. With the increased crminality, people who were once able to defend themselves, are now helpless and will beg and plead for their local party official to arrange more frequent police patrols. Now that we need more police patrols, we need to pay more taxes. And by increasing the police headcount, with most police officers being unionized, there will be more unioin money. With more union money, there will be more funds for our politicians to use in their campaign and help guarantee a long rewarding career in govt. This is also the reason why antis are big believers in the welfare state, public schools, govt. subsidies, massive regulations, etc.
alsaqr
Member
Am i the only poster here that realizes that there is much more than has been discussed. Ever wonder why all those whiney anti-gun political hacks are opposed to any meaningful punishment for violent felons?
Convicted felons vote in 39 states and they overwhelmingly vote for anti-gunners.
Convicted felons vote in 39 states and they overwhelmingly vote for anti-gunners.
Low-Sci
Member
It's patently unfair, in my view, to demonize antis as megalomaniacs or people who are sick. Some of them think the exact same thing about you, and that certainly doesn't make them right. Lets be honest with ourselves, and not turn this into an ad-hominem contest.
The way I see it, antis mean well. They really do believe what they're saying, just like you believe what you're saying. Some of them have even put lots of research into their argument, just like you probably have. It's not that they're stupid, or that they're ignorant, or that they're sick. Its that they honestly, intelligently disagree with you. And that's fine - actually that's a good thing. Its not always acceptable in every nation to disagree with the people who have guns, so we should be happy about that.
Of course there are a variety of types of anti, each with a different rationale. But in a democracy what matters is the type of anti that is at the ground level, at the same level you are who disagrees with you, because that person honestly believes what they're saying. You can't always trust a politician to be honest, but you can generally trust your equals to speak their true mind. At least thats been my experience, unless they're all in on a massive conspiracy and you can't go down the street without walking past nineteen people who have been paid to keep quiet about it.
At the ground level, antis mean well, and really believe what they say. I know all about the road paved with good intentions, so lets give that one a miss for the time being in favor of understanding their argument a little better. Antis tend to be socially liberal (without carrying that generalization too far, I realize there are members of this board who identify as such), and their stance on guns has to be taken in context with the rest of their probable political convictions, because these things don't exist in a vacuum. My girlfriend of the last 3 years is a good example.
She's very socially liberal, and has a very humanist outlook. She hates to see crime and human suffering, she hates the poverty that she believes is responsible for it, and she doesn't feel that social action by itself can carry the load that's needed to fix it all - so her social beliefs manifest themselves in the political realm. Without picking apart every flaw in her stance, she believes that we need to do something about the poverty that fuels so much of the crime, but that will take a long time - decades. But guns we can remove from society very quickly, at least in theory, in an effort to stop enabling that crime and the human suffering that inevitably goes with it. I think there's a flaw in that argument and undoubtedly many of you do to. But you have to take it for what it is: a sincere disagreement on what is best for us as a society.
It's not that she wants the government to take care of her (and I've gotten in enough arguments about that with her), it's that she wants us, as citizens in a democracy, to do what is needed to take care of each other, because we all depend on someone else for something. The brotherhood of man, so to speak. And she and I respectfully disagree on how that is best done when it comes to firearms, though we agree that poverty is a driving factor behind a great deal of crime.
Its very tempting to see the other side's argument and try immediately to tear it down. It's almost instinctual. But it's not conducive to understanding their viewpoint, which is critical if we're going to get along with each other in a civilized way. You don't have to agree, but you should make an honest, unbiased effort to understand.
The way I see it, antis mean well. They really do believe what they're saying, just like you believe what you're saying. Some of them have even put lots of research into their argument, just like you probably have. It's not that they're stupid, or that they're ignorant, or that they're sick. Its that they honestly, intelligently disagree with you. And that's fine - actually that's a good thing. Its not always acceptable in every nation to disagree with the people who have guns, so we should be happy about that.
Of course there are a variety of types of anti, each with a different rationale. But in a democracy what matters is the type of anti that is at the ground level, at the same level you are who disagrees with you, because that person honestly believes what they're saying. You can't always trust a politician to be honest, but you can generally trust your equals to speak their true mind. At least thats been my experience, unless they're all in on a massive conspiracy and you can't go down the street without walking past nineteen people who have been paid to keep quiet about it.
At the ground level, antis mean well, and really believe what they say. I know all about the road paved with good intentions, so lets give that one a miss for the time being in favor of understanding their argument a little better. Antis tend to be socially liberal (without carrying that generalization too far, I realize there are members of this board who identify as such), and their stance on guns has to be taken in context with the rest of their probable political convictions, because these things don't exist in a vacuum. My girlfriend of the last 3 years is a good example.
She's very socially liberal, and has a very humanist outlook. She hates to see crime and human suffering, she hates the poverty that she believes is responsible for it, and she doesn't feel that social action by itself can carry the load that's needed to fix it all - so her social beliefs manifest themselves in the political realm. Without picking apart every flaw in her stance, she believes that we need to do something about the poverty that fuels so much of the crime, but that will take a long time - decades. But guns we can remove from society very quickly, at least in theory, in an effort to stop enabling that crime and the human suffering that inevitably goes with it. I think there's a flaw in that argument and undoubtedly many of you do to. But you have to take it for what it is: a sincere disagreement on what is best for us as a society.
It's not that she wants the government to take care of her (and I've gotten in enough arguments about that with her), it's that she wants us, as citizens in a democracy, to do what is needed to take care of each other, because we all depend on someone else for something. The brotherhood of man, so to speak. And she and I respectfully disagree on how that is best done when it comes to firearms, though we agree that poverty is a driving factor behind a great deal of crime.
Its very tempting to see the other side's argument and try immediately to tear it down. It's almost instinctual. But it's not conducive to understanding their viewpoint, which is critical if we're going to get along with each other in a civilized way. You don't have to agree, but you should make an honest, unbiased effort to understand.
They feel that anything below LEOs do not have the capacity to even look at a gun.
Honestly, if it was about complete control of the people, then it would be moving much quicker than this. We aren't like a police state or unitarian regime, where the country had to invest all of the power to just one select and small group without any say-so of who is in that group. We have three large branches , so you can move that out of the way.
They simply believe that guns are only used to kill things, and that if you get a gun, that you're bound to shoot someone eventually. They believe that they are ruining the youth the same way music and television does, etc. etc. etc. there really is no political agenda behind it that is any different than any other issue
What it really boils down to is that they think that gun control measures will, in the long run, eliminate guns. On paper, that is right if:
-the police start doing outstanding work for a change
-you exclude the fact that the sheer number of guns in the country now is just a 'rough estimate'
-if the government knew where all of these guns actually are
-Mexico and other countries that are filled with guns much more powerful than what is legal on our markets (and much cheaper) weren't easily accessible
if they ban guns and start rounding them up, then you'll see the DC effect on a larger scale: criminals will go to Mexico or hit up foreign druglords for AKs and old FAL/G3 rifles. In essence, the situation will only get worse. Alot of them don't just think about those kind of things, and are focused on votes more than anything. Nothing to do with power and control as it does just power. If we were promised a 6-figure salary to show up to work for six years twice a month, then you'd probably do alot of hypocritical crap as well
they just don't like guns, and are trying to get rid of them, even if the intelligent arguments offered are filled with gaping holes of consistency. Alot of them also aren't as stubborn or passionate as they seem, either. Alot of them deserve more credit, but alot of them, as we've seen, deserve a kick to the teeth. Same goes for some of the pro-gunners as well, unfortunately.
Honestly, if it was about complete control of the people, then it would be moving much quicker than this. We aren't like a police state or unitarian regime, where the country had to invest all of the power to just one select and small group without any say-so of who is in that group. We have three large branches , so you can move that out of the way.
They simply believe that guns are only used to kill things, and that if you get a gun, that you're bound to shoot someone eventually. They believe that they are ruining the youth the same way music and television does, etc. etc. etc. there really is no political agenda behind it that is any different than any other issue
What it really boils down to is that they think that gun control measures will, in the long run, eliminate guns. On paper, that is right if:
-the police start doing outstanding work for a change
-you exclude the fact that the sheer number of guns in the country now is just a 'rough estimate'
-if the government knew where all of these guns actually are
-Mexico and other countries that are filled with guns much more powerful than what is legal on our markets (and much cheaper) weren't easily accessible
if they ban guns and start rounding them up, then you'll see the DC effect on a larger scale: criminals will go to Mexico or hit up foreign druglords for AKs and old FAL/G3 rifles. In essence, the situation will only get worse. Alot of them don't just think about those kind of things, and are focused on votes more than anything. Nothing to do with power and control as it does just power. If we were promised a 6-figure salary to show up to work for six years twice a month, then you'd probably do alot of hypocritical crap as well
they just don't like guns, and are trying to get rid of them, even if the intelligent arguments offered are filled with gaping holes of consistency. Alot of them also aren't as stubborn or passionate as they seem, either. Alot of them deserve more credit, but alot of them, as we've seen, deserve a kick to the teeth. Same goes for some of the pro-gunners as well, unfortunately.
JasperST5
member
Not to pick on your girlfriend but she probably is fairly typical of antis. I believe she, like most liberals, haven't thought through the argument to it's natural conclusion. Poverty was much worse in the past, to the point we have to redefine what the word means. The depression era had almost a 25% unemployment rate. But not nearly the crime. Certainly not the senseless violent crime we see today. Liberals refuse to look at the real reason for crime because it contradicts their world view of moral relativism. A decrease in moral values assumes that there's a value to start with so it can't be that. They turn to what they can see and touch instead, the gun.
We working together are code words for government. The government is the only thing that can control our actions if we don't all agree, and we don't.
So yes I think we want the same basic end result but their path can only be paved by increasing government control.
"Then I look at the 2nd Amendment. It is very clear what it means."
I guess the anti's could say, that how could it be clear to you when the 2nd Amend. was written when the musket was most dangerous arm.
IMO a big problem with the debate on this issue is that most of the pro gun people love guns as a hobby so much that it is almost an identity, and they would be lost without that hobby. So any possibility of even sensible legislation scares them. On the other side, many of "anti's" are so fearful of guns and have never even fired one that they are too removed from the reality of a gun just another tool that requires respect.
I guess the anti's could say, that how could it be clear to you when the 2nd Amend. was written when the musket was most dangerous arm.
IMO a big problem with the debate on this issue is that most of the pro gun people love guns as a hobby so much that it is almost an identity, and they would be lost without that hobby. So any possibility of even sensible legislation scares them. On the other side, many of "anti's" are so fearful of guns and have never even fired one that they are too removed from the reality of a gun just another tool that requires respect.
Gunnerpalace
Member
Bingo, When I was younger I thought to myself, Hmm why do they want to ban them why not just use extreme regulations wouldn't that work for them better, until I realized what the method to the madness was.
AirForceShooter
Member
They want control.
They don't trust you.
It's that simple
AFS
They don't trust you.
It's that simple
AFS
I like that breakdown classification. However, I see the possibility of power seekers hiding in other groups. as you go down the list, then they become either farther or closer to each extreme to the point where you wonder how far to such are they. A little ambiguous if you ask me.
Low-Sci
Member
"Not to pick on your girlfriend but she probably is fairly typical of antis."
She is, that's precisely the point. She's not some evil, slavemaster politician, she's a humanist advocating what she sees as the best route. Nobody can fault her for it, just as nobody can fault you for doing the same thing.
"They want control.
They don't trust you."
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that since you don't trust them either, fair is fair. And there's something else about this "control" element that's important to point out.
Sure, there are maniac politicians. But we've already established that I'm not talking about those politicians, I'm talking about ground-level folks, maniacs be damned. Your average ground-level liberal doesn't want to create a totalitarian state, that much ought to be obvious to an objective party.
What they do want is the same, exact thing you want: to have your opinion acknowledged and acted on at a national level, because you believe it to be the best course of action. The fact that this means increased governmental controls on their side is a means to an end; they're not seeking control for the sake of control, which is a distinction that is nearly always lost in translation.
Gun people tend to swing libertarian. So much so that the term "control" is almost synonymous with "evil". Any breach of individual rights constitutes a crime against humanity, and certainly there's some truth to that. But this translation happens so fast in our libertarian brains that we don't stop to consider what that control might be about, or what the underlying causes - at the ground level, again - might be for that. We don't imagine for a second that this "control" isn't a governmental grab at power when it comes to ground-level people as it is an attempt to better the human condition by removing what they see as the harmful elements of society.
Many of you make the same, precise points about being tougher on criminals as an alternative to gun control - removing the harmful elements from society. But what is harsher sentencing and more vigorous policing but increased governmental control, again? Certainly its a different type that targets a different audience, yet it's control all the same.
We could say there's a difference, in that we'd like to exert more control over criminals only, and they'd like to exert control over everyone. They'd likely respond that we'd like to strip criminals of their humanity, while they're trying to preserve everyone's humanity. Of course you can point and counter-point this all day long, but that's not productive in understanding what they really want, which is the question.
I'll say again that what they really want, when everything is said and done, is to have a safer, happier society. They want it as a reality, and not a feeling, and odds are good that this is precisely what you want. Increased governmental control - both our type and their type - are means to an end, not the end objective itself.
Whether it's the right means to that end, no doubt many of you have a fairly strong opinion on that. But in the spirit of the thread - one of understanding what they really want - there's your answer.
She is, that's precisely the point. She's not some evil, slavemaster politician, she's a humanist advocating what she sees as the best route. Nobody can fault her for it, just as nobody can fault you for doing the same thing.
"They want control.
They don't trust you."
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that since you don't trust them either, fair is fair. And there's something else about this "control" element that's important to point out.
Sure, there are maniac politicians. But we've already established that I'm not talking about those politicians, I'm talking about ground-level folks, maniacs be damned. Your average ground-level liberal doesn't want to create a totalitarian state, that much ought to be obvious to an objective party.
What they do want is the same, exact thing you want: to have your opinion acknowledged and acted on at a national level, because you believe it to be the best course of action. The fact that this means increased governmental controls on their side is a means to an end; they're not seeking control for the sake of control, which is a distinction that is nearly always lost in translation.
Gun people tend to swing libertarian. So much so that the term "control" is almost synonymous with "evil". Any breach of individual rights constitutes a crime against humanity, and certainly there's some truth to that. But this translation happens so fast in our libertarian brains that we don't stop to consider what that control might be about, or what the underlying causes - at the ground level, again - might be for that. We don't imagine for a second that this "control" isn't a governmental grab at power when it comes to ground-level people as it is an attempt to better the human condition by removing what they see as the harmful elements of society.
Many of you make the same, precise points about being tougher on criminals as an alternative to gun control - removing the harmful elements from society. But what is harsher sentencing and more vigorous policing but increased governmental control, again? Certainly its a different type that targets a different audience, yet it's control all the same.
We could say there's a difference, in that we'd like to exert more control over criminals only, and they'd like to exert control over everyone. They'd likely respond that we'd like to strip criminals of their humanity, while they're trying to preserve everyone's humanity. Of course you can point and counter-point this all day long, but that's not productive in understanding what they really want, which is the question.
I'll say again that what they really want, when everything is said and done, is to have a safer, happier society. They want it as a reality, and not a feeling, and odds are good that this is precisely what you want. Increased governmental control - both our type and their type - are means to an end, not the end objective itself.
Whether it's the right means to that end, no doubt many of you have a fairly strong opinion on that. But in the spirit of the thread - one of understanding what they really want - there's your answer.
alsaqr
Member
Many anti's are not the well meaning folks that some of you think they are.
Sarah Brady instructed her debaters to call the pro-gunner in a debate a racist if the pro-gunner was winning the dabate.
Sarah Brady instructed her debaters to call the pro-gunner in a debate a racist if the pro-gunner was winning the dabate.
Mr. Designer
Member
They want a "theoretical" Communist state, where everyone is taken care of by the state. No one is poor, everyone is fed, housed and happily living with others. This does not work when put into practice and ends with millions dead.
- Status
Similar threads
