What Do The Anti's Really Want?

[makarovnik]

Some in the government want to disarm you before they tell you they stole all your social security. Do you blame them?

 

[Kim]

Well they can not really steal your SS cause you do not own any of it. It could be ended tomorrow and you have absolutely no legal right to one penny. See they already have you depending on them. Sneaky bastards. And most people will keep those in office who will keep the SS money flowing. Steal No. You will be stealing from those younger than you. Leagalized redistribution that is.

 

[Beagle-zebub]

"Progressive" thought is concerned primarily with that: progression. There is generally no feasible long-term goal in mind, and what progress is attained over time becomes the new state of deprivation, as expectations always increase to the necessary degree over the same period of time. Progressives tell Americans that they have a right to healthcare that didn't exist 100 years ago; in 100 years, they'll tell them that everyone has the right to a wind instrument and the requisite instruction in its use. According to Naked Economics, the current American poverty-line, adjusted for inflation, covers 90% of Americans living in the year 1905--could this really have nothing to do with changing expectations? No I've ever known has been murdered, and yet the homicide victimization rate for my demographic is deemed too high by comparing it to lower ones in other countries. Meanwhile, paying the costs necessary for progress becomes a good unto itself: incarcerating criminals (until incarceration becomes the problem du jour), compulsory charity, compulsory public service, gun control, etc. The passage of time hides or sanctifies the opportunity costs, and creates grand illusions of benefit. Progressivism is a world-class meme.

 

[Deanimator]

Insofar as we have a duty to make reason prevail, I certainly agree. However, the notion that they are by definition anti-rational betrays the argument because it's an assumption. We're assuming that they're stupid, which isn't fair or productive. We don't presume any of our other enemies - home invaders, muggers, murderers or rapists - are by definition stupid, and we shouldn't do it here either. Certainly some are, but by rights some pro-gunners are too. Let's not overgeneralize.

I've spent something like twenty years in usenet and fidonet before it, fighting [the most virulent anti-gunners. It's not "assumption". It's EXPERIENCE.

Anti-rationality, stupidity and dishonesty are the lifeblood of the hardcore anti-gunner, just as it is for the Holocaust denier. The respective movements couldn't exist without them.

At some point we have to face human realities and admit that there are lots of people on both sides of this argument, some of whom are brilliant and others who are dumber than stones. Both types exist in both places.

Most "brilliant" anti-gunners whom I've seen were dilettantes like Dr. Shockley and Noam Chomsky. They trade on accomplishment in one field to assert competence in another totally unrelated field. If being an electrical engineer doesn't make you an expert on race, why does being an actor make you an expert on firearms and crime?

"When you try to impose victimization on unwilling third parties, you deserve to be humiliated for doing so, and if you do it in my presence, you certainly will be."

That's a pretty subjective call. If we're trying to make reason win the day, maybe it's not a good idea to attempt to denigrate the other side of the conversation. I'm reasonably sure that's not how you win a lot of converts, and frankly that's very important.

I call them as I see them. If you're running around using multiple aliases to simulate support for your idiotic position, if you're appealing to racism and anti-Semitism, if you're telling women that they'll feel worse for shooting a rapist than being raped, you DESERVE to be humiliated. I don't worry about "converting" jackasses like that. Instead I let them parade their dishonesty, stupidity and malice in full view. That converts the fence sitters.

 

[rdhood]

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.

+1. They believe that if all of the guns in the world could be destroyed, that people would live harmoniously with one another. They conveniently forget the 10,000 years of history before guns came on the scene, or the vast numbers of assaults and murders that are committed every year in every country by people without guns... or that regimes have been relieving the people of guns for hundreds of years in order to subject them to the tyranny of government. Those that desire power play the anti-gun sentiment to the max in order to enhance their own control.

 

[SSN Vet]

Antis, (like most liberals imo.), are really all about money and power....

they advocate stupid arguments, designed to tug on the emotional strings of stupid people, to get themselves into positions rife with money and power, which also require very little work and talent.

They pander to whatever group is whining about disenfranchisement, and make lots of promises, which any astute individual can see they will have no ability to follow through on.

 

[PinoyInFL]

Anti's live in a could'a, should'a, would'a world. They constantly think about what could be instead of what is. They imagine a world without evil, poverty, hunger or disease. A world where everyone has and gets what they want. That's what antis want. AND if they can dream it - it can be.

AND THAT IS EXACTLY The problem! Anti's truly believe that if one can dream it - then the dream can come true and that in many if not most cases is just not the case. In addition they tend towards short term easy fixes to problems without regard to consequence or possibility of success.

I agree 100% with the above post from Werewolf. The problem with the anti/liberal mindset is that they insist on being judged, not by the result of their actions, but only by their intentions. Therefore, you cannot hold them responsible if someone gets killed/raped/mugged as a direct or indirect result of gun bans. They insist that you only look at their "good" intentions regardless of the consequences. They'll just say "hey, at least we did something". That "something" may not fix things but it definitely feels good to them that they tried to do something. I call it irrational. Others simply refer to it as stupid.

 

[GEM]

Not going to read everything, so here are my points:

1. Folks who think removing firearms will make them and their environs safer. They may be wrong but that is not an ignoble motive.

2. Folks who see guns as a totem of a political faction they don't like - right wing folks - so thus guns must be bad.

3. Even conservative folks who want to remove power from the body of the people - your economic, exploitive business types.

4. Schills for the alien invasion that is using the UN to disarm us.

 

[Poper]

GEM said:

They'll just say "hey, at least we did something". That "something" may not fix things but it definitely feels good to them that they tried to do something. I call it irrational. Others simply refer to it as stupid.

I think it may be insane. You are certainly correct that it is not a reasoned solution because the consequences of their actions are rarely (if ever) considered. The willingness of "progressives" &/or "liberals" to overlook their failures and make excuses like "we just need to spend more (of your) money..." or "judge not on my results, but only my intentions" lends some support to the insane viewpoint.
Very few people are successful when they ignore their failures and vow to repeat them, yet the anti-gun/pacifists do exactly that. Are these examples that may be avoided if future education taught critical thinking skills?

My 2 cents.... FWIW

Poper

 

[GEM]

GEM - where did I say what was quoted?

 

[Low-Sci]

"I've spent something like twenty years in usenet and fidonet before it, fighting [the most virulent anti-gunners. It's not "assumption". It's EXPERIENCE."

Well then let me start by saying thank you for fighting the good fight for so long. But, when you talked about this experience, you said both times that these are the hardcore antigunners you're talking about, which is certainly fair, but those people are probably just as rare as the people on our side who think firearm ownership ought to be compulsory - that is to say that the demographic is a different, smaller one that isn't quite so mainstream as a casual anti-gun persuasion is. Even if your experience is with those very entrenched folks, you'll have to admit that anti-gunners exist on a spectrum just like we do when it comes to intensity, and most of us aren't in a demographic that will match that one.

"Most "brilliant" anti-gunners whom I've seen were dilettantes like Dr. Shockley and Noam Chomsky. They trade on accomplishment in one field to assert competence in another totally unrelated field."

I know what you mean, and I've certainly seen this too. When people gain a position of authority, sometimes people assume competence where there is none. But we should also be honest with ourselves in recognizing that a debate on gun rights can be very complicated and can drag an awful lot of second-order information into it.

If we're going to be rational about the debate, people have to be capable of understanding some very complicated arguments that include elements of demographics, history, legislation, psychology, physics, and spatial perception. If we're going to be persuasive it can't just be half an hour of "molon labe", and it requires some intelligence to comprehend. People who are capable of comprehending them are intelligent, and we want them on our side, no two ways about it. Calling them stupid for not realizing all of our arguments beforehand isn't constructive.

And as far as the scam artists who make up their own support, well yeah. Fair call, those guys in particular are playing a losing game.

 

[JasperST5]

"We do not want the same thing, we want liberty, they want control."

But these are again methods.

Liberty is not a method. Methods might be used to gain liberty or restrict it. That's what this discussion amounts to. We may all want safety but at what price?

The same is true in terms of anti-gun rhetoric. They think people ought not be free to carry guns because it would threaten their safety. And you can lob Benjamin Franklin at me all day on that one, I know what he said, but that certainly doesn't mean the anti-gun crowd accepts that argument.

You mean this one?

"Those who would sacrifice Liberty for Safety, deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin

Apparently ole Ben didn't give a flip what antis thought. Count me in his camp. You seem to want to placate the left, you can't, they want more and more control over your life for an illusion of safety.

The logic here on the anti side is that while there is freedom from government (strictly defined as "liberty"), there is such a thing as freedom from danger as well, and right or wrong they see the proliferation of concealed weapons as more dangerous than government legislation against it. Is this control for the sake of control? No, again its control for the sake of safety, whether it actually works that way or not, because that is the desired goal.

That's like saying that the people who want to neuter you aren't really into neutering, they just want the piece of mind that neutering brings. The fact that they can't accept their true motivations isn't going to deter my desire to remain intact.

I'm not getting into whether they're right or wrong, and I'm not sure why people keep trying to convince me because I'm on your side already. I'm just explaining the mindset. I understand the notion of freedom guaranteeing one's safety as laid out by the founding fathers, but you'll have to understand that there are people out there who intelligently and respectfully disagree with their thesis; they find evidence against it by looking at drug abuse, slavery, child prostitution, all kinds of things.

I might call it intellectual but not intelligent. Intellectual arguments are often are used to further a goal not intelligence. The fact though is that the more the people are neutered the easier it is to lead them. That's control no matter how it is explained away.

Not that the founders championed these things, but they might be seen as evidence that freedom is sometimes more dangerous in some respects than government.

I'm not sure what you mean specifically but I understand freedom to stop where the other guy's starts. No one has the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater without cause.

Again, I don't expect any of you to agree with that. But there are people out there who do. Whether you think this to be wrong-headed or not really isn't a matter of debate, given the nature of this forum. But this is something like how the thought process goes.

I would only agree that liberals are wrong headed. I don't believe most of them really think through the consequences but let their idealism get in the way of reality.

 

[Low-Sci]

"We may all want safety but at what price?"

There it is, right exactly there. You just said what its all about. We do all want safety, and are williing to pay differently to get it.

"You seem to want to placate the left, you can't, they want more and more control over your life for an illusion of safety. "

I'm not placating anybody. If I wanted to concede the point to them I wouldn't be here. And its not an illusion of safety they're after, they honestly do believe that what they are advocating will result in real safety. Exactly what you said: we all want safety, but at what price?

"That's control no matter how it is explained away."

I never said it wasn't control and I never tried to "explain it away" - I merely tried to explain it. I haven't been explaining it in an effort to make you go back to sleep or something, I've been explaining it to make the point that yes, it is control (which I never denied) but that it is control intended to further a cause, and not just for the hell of it. That is important to understand because it's good to be honest with ourselves and not oversimplify the arguments that are against our position.

"That's like saying that the people who want to neuter you aren't really into neutering, they just want the piece of mind that neutering brings. The fact that they can't accept their true motivations isn't going to deter my desire to remain intact."

Yes, it's exactly like saying that. Because not many people really enjoy hacking up a dog's giblets, they're doing it to reduce the number of strays and reduce certain health problems. It's about well-being, no matter how ugly the act might be.

But what's not true here is that they don't accept their own motivations; this is an ad-hominem without a point. We have to learn to accept that anti-gun advocates really, actually, truly do believe what they are saying. They believe it as much as you believe what you're saying. If we constantly, endlessly say that the other side is just lying about their true intentions to commit genocide (both sides say this), then we are not furthering the debate and we're settling for casual insults thrown at the other side of the aisle.

Freedom is a nebulous term, and within it exist liberty and safety. Liberty is freedom from government, and safety is freedom from danger. As a result, its entirely possible that someone is less worried about threats from their government than they are from some non-governmental danger, and the government might actually be able to reduce that perceived danger. It's a hard idea to wrap your mind around on this board, but there it is.

 

[Poper]

GEM - where did I say what was quoted?

OOPS!

My mistake! That was PinoyInFL's quote!

Sorry 'bout that!

Poper

 

[JasperST5]

And its not an illusion of safety they're after, they honestly do believe that what they are advocating will result in real safety. Exactly what you said: we all want safety, but at what price?

You keep bringing up the obvious differences as if it was the real issue. Pro gun folks want to rely on their own abilities, antis think they can achieve safety by relying on the government. Safety via the government is an illusion. It's a fantasy.
Where they safe at Virginia State? It was a no gun zone after all.

"That's like saying that the people who want to neuter you aren't really into neutering, they just want the piece of mind that neutering brings. The fact that they can't accept their true motivations isn't going to deter my desire to remain intact."

Yes, it's exactly like saying that. Because not many people really enjoy hacking up a dog's giblets, they're doing it to reduce the number of strays and reduce certain health problems. It's about well-being, no matter how ugly the act might be.

Yes and if dogs could vote and arm themselves they wouldn't be getting neutered.

But what's not true here is that they don't accept their own motivations; this is an ad-hominem without a point. We have to learn to accept that anti-gun advocates really, actually, truly do believe what they are saying.

I know what they want, I know what they believe and I know their true motivation, as I've already mentioned. They may prefer to think of it in more blissful terms but that's their disfunction, not mine.
Understanding the purity of their misguided hearts isn't going to make gun confiscation more palatable to gun owners.

They believe it as much as you believe what you're saying. If we constantly, endlessly say that the other side is just lying about their true intentions to commit genocide (both sides say this), then we are not furthering the debate and we're settling for casual insults thrown at the other side of the aisle.

I said neither of those things and didn't see anyone else either.

Freedom is a nebulous term, and within it exist liberty and safety. Liberty is freedom from government, and safety is freedom from danger. As a result, its entirely possible that someone is less worried about threats from their government than they are from some non-governmental danger, and the government might actually be able to reduce that perceived danger. It's a hard idea to wrap your mind around on this board, but there it is.

That's all been said many different ways so far, I don't think it's a hard point at all. Pro gun folks want the freedom to arm themselves like the framers intended, antis want that right removed. Everyone seems to understand it as far as I can tell.

 

[rainbowbob]

We have to learn to accept that anti-gun advocates really, actually, truly do believe what they are saying.

My brother, a judge, is an anti-gun advocate. He has stated that "Violence is NEVER the answer." As another poster pointed out in another thread: He employs the implied threat of violence every time he asks that his rulings be carried out. My brother is a man of integrity. So how CAN he employ the threat of violence every day and believe that violence is NEVER the answer without his head exploding?

I can only conclude that what he REALLY believes is: Violence committed by INDIVIDUALS is NEVER the answer. Only violence sponsored and implemented by the state is acceptable. Except war...he's against that too. So...only violence implemented by local governments (state, county, city) to maintain order in HIS courtroom and HIS community is acceptable. And that fallacious position is based on the following delusion:

...antis think they can achieve safety by relying on the government.

But the reality is:

Safety via the government is an illusion.

 

[Low-Sci]

"You keep bringing up the obvious differences as if it was the real issue."

These differences are a real issue. If we all want safety, then there's no end-state disagreement inherent in that conclusion. So the issue, then, is how best to get to that end-state. Nobody's bickering about wanting safety anymore, everyone wants that. So the issue really is how to go about getting it.

"Yes and if dogs could vote and arm themselves they wouldn't be getting neutered. "

But there's no point in that statement as it pertains to the thread. The point is what antis want, not whether dogs should be neutered or if dogs would prevent that neutering. Or, even why we use the term "neutered" instead of "defanged", because I don't think I've ever seen dogs fight or defend themselves with their penises either.

"Understanding the purity of their misguided hearts isn't going to make gun confiscation more palatable to gun owners."

Which is decidedly not my intent. I'm answering the question posed by the thread and assuming that its not a rhetorical question, asked so we can create an internet back-slapping contest. Maybe I was wrong in that assumption, but my answer remains the same because I expect the question was asked in good faith and the person posing it wanted a good-faith answer.

"I said neither of those things and didn't see anyone else either."

And I never said that you said them. But by this point we really can't play dumb anymore and pretend that there aren't people on both sides who depend on the rhetoric of calling the other side totalitarian. You've seen it in this very thread, with people saying that anti-gunners want to enslave you. You've seen it in preposterous anti-gun arguments that call us all racists, and say The Turner Diaries are the pro-gun plan for the future. You've seen it in every single time pro-gunners bring up the disarmament prior to the holocaust. They resent the latter as much as we resent the former. We've all seen it and pretending like we haven't is intellectually dishonest. We don't all rely on it, and I'm not saying you do. But some of us, on both sides, are quick to throw this one into the arena.

And, without context, its nothing but a personal attack that assumes we're all totalitarians. Its also a straw man set up so we don't have to look at the real arguments coming at us. we can write even the college kid with a casual anti-gun viewpoint off as a future dictator and potential follower of a genocidal government. That kid can write us off as a bunch of dangerously imbalanced militiamen looking to create an Aryan future. These are extremes, and they are ridiculously unfair, but if we're honest with ourselves we've seen it happen before. I know I see it all the time; Facebook debates constantly get heated when people do this and they do it habitually as if they can't stop themselves from doing it.

But even with all of that said, it has to be kept in mind that the question of "what do they want" has been answered here. The only remaining question, the one that is constantly addressed but was never actually asked, is whether or not their method towards achieving that end-state will work.

Nobody would come to this forum with the illusion that anyone here would actually suggest that it would work, and that's definitely not what I'm suggesting. I'm explaining another viewpoint, not championing it.

 

[Mannlicher]

A lot of anti gun folks are slaves to the Nanny State, and feel that Government can, and will take care of us. They are misguided, but relatively benign.
The hard core ones though, are liberal socialists, that seek total disarmament of the population, so that the Citizens cannot oppose the government. Think Joe Stalin..............

 

[Low-Sci]

"You keep bringing up the obvious differences as if it was the real issue."

These differences are a real issue. If we all want safety, then there's no end-state disagreement inherent in that conclusion. So the issue, then, is how best to get to that end-state. Nobody's bickering about wanting safety anymore, everyone wants that. So the issue really is how to go about getting it.

"Yes and if dogs could vote and arm themselves they wouldn't be getting neutered. "

But there's no point in that statement as it pertains to the thread. The point is what antis want, not whether dogs should be neutered or if dogs would prevent that neutering. Or, even why we use the term "neutered" instead of "defanged", because I don't think I've ever seen dogs fight or defend themselves with their penises either.

"Understanding the purity of their misguided hearts isn't going to make gun confiscation more palatable to gun owners."

Which is decidedly not my intent. I'm answering the question posed by the thread and assuming that its not a rhetorical question, asked so we can create an internet back-slapping contest. Maybe I was wrong in that assumption, but my answer remains the same because I expect the question was asked in good faith and the person posing it wanted a good-faith answer.

"I said neither of those things and didn't see anyone else either."

And I never said that you said them. But by this point we really can't play dumb anymore and pretend that there aren't people on both sides who depend on the rhetoric of calling the other side totalitarian. You've seen it in this very thread, with people saying that anti-gunners want to enslave you. You've seen it in preposterous anti-gun arguments that call us all racists, and say The Turner Diaries are the pro-gun plan for the future. You've seen it in every single time pro-gunners bring up the disarmament prior to the holocaust. They resent the latter as much as we resent the former. We've all seen it and pretending like we haven't is intellectually dishonest. We don't all rely on it, and I'm not saying you do. But some of us, on both sides, are quick to throw this one into the arena.

And, without context, its nothing but a personal attack that assumes we're all totalitarians. Its also a straw man set up so we don't have to look at the real arguments coming at us. we can write even the college kid with a casual anti-gun viewpoint off as a future dictator and potential follower of a genocidal government. That kid can write us off as a bunch of dangerously imbalanced militiamen looking to create an Aryan future. These are extremes, and they are ridiculously unfair, but if we're honest with ourselves we've seen it happen before. I know I see it all the time; Facebook debates constantly get heated when people do this and they do it habitually as if they can't stop themselves from doing it.

But even with all of that said, it has to be kept in mind that the question of "what do they want" has been answered here. The only remaining question, the one that is constantly addressed but was never actually asked, is whether or not their method towards achieving that end-state will work.

Nobody would come to this forum with the illusion that anyone here would actually suggest that it would work, and that's definitely not what I'm suggesting. I'm explaining another viewpoint, not championing it.

 

[JasperST5]

So the issue really is how to go about getting it.

Like I said, that's obvious.

"Yes and if dogs could vote and arm themselves they wouldn't be getting neutered. "

But there's no point in that statement as it pertains to the thread. The point is what antis want, not whether dogs should be neutered or if dogs would prevent that neutering. Or, even why we use the term "neutered" instead of "defanged", because I don't think I've ever seen dogs fight or defend themselves with their penises either.

Whooosh.

I'm explaining another viewpoint, not championing it.

Probably most here have heard their arguments before. I suspect you are trying to reconcile your view with that of your girl friends. I don't think you can and may have to agree to disagree for now. How do you compromise with someone that wants your gun(s) taken away? Do you say it's OK if you can keep one? Or just a few bullets? Or keep it in an unusable state? The Democrats have largely dropped the issue because it cost them too many votes. That didn't happen because pros and antis found middle ground.

 

[Hook686]

To feel safe ... just like all you folks with guns ... just different ways of going about it.

 

[Fake Name]

JasperST5

I dont think the Democrats have officially "dropped" the gun control thing. They're just not talking about it cuz they know it wont help them win an election.

Sure as sh%! if obama of hillary get into office we will see some of the most stringent gun control that the US has ever faced.

 

[theotherwaldo]

They want the "Glorious Revolution" that leads us all to the "Beautiful New Society".

Problem is, they know they can't WIN the revolution while their opponents are armed.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Depends on the anti.

Most (especially average everyday ones) want the world to be peaceful, and think that banning guns can achieve that.

The others (mostly Congress-critters) want power over others, and feel that banning guns can help them out.

I could go more in depth, but it comes down either to a belief in a world that can deny human nature, or a desire to control others. Everything else is just a further explanation of one of the two viewpoints.

 

[Low-Sci]

First, sorry about the double-post, that was unintentional.

-"So the issue really is how to go about getting it."
-"Like I said, that's obvious."

If it were obvious, we wouldn't have spent four pages going back and forth on it. We did not both accept this item at the beginning of the conversation. Maybe you still don't, but if you've agreed that we all want to be safe as opposed to anti-gunners simply wanting control for the sake of control, then that looks like a departure to me.

"Whooosh."

If I've missed your point, please explain it. If the point was that people who don't agree with the anti-gunners' agenda would naturally fight back, well, seeing as I'm present on this forum I'm not sure how you can claim that I missed that one. But if I did, by all means let me know what it is.

"I suspect you are trying to reconcile your view with that of your girl friends. I don't think you can and may have to agree to disagree for now."

She has a predominately anti-gun view with some exceptions, and I have a predominately pro-gun view. There's no need for us to agree on the subject, so long as we've made an honest effort to understand each other and we don't get nasty over our differences.