What do you consider an "anti"?

[jlh26oo]

Say someone was into hunting, shooting sports, an N.R.A. member, and collected firearms- but didn't for instance support open carry, and didn't fundamentally oppose certain limitations or qualifications (I.E. background checks, or even banning certain types of firearms etc).

Do you put them in the same class as the most radical of antis, or worse since they are "one of us" yet a hypocrite/traitor? Or is someone who has and uses guns, believed in using them in S.D. an N.R.A. member etc definitively not an anti?

Slicing hairs/semantics, but just curious how T.H.R. defines it. Just vote then tell us what specifically defines "anti" to you (as often as we throw it around). If you want to hash out any particular issue, let's not do it here (please start a new thread if allowable).

Thanks.

 

[Blakenzy]

If you are proactively supporting or voicing support(by voting, drafting laws or other political activities) of measures that curtail or otherwise restrict the ability of citizens to obtain and legaly use firearms of any kind according to their will then you are an antigun character.

If you disagree with ownership or use of certain firearms but keep the matter on the personal opinion level then you are not an anti, you just have "antigun" tendencies.

 

[hso]

OT for Activism, but it could make for a good GGD discussion.

Remember to stay focused on the OP question and start your own thread instead of drifting off the road.

 

[LKB3rd]

I see an anti as someone who is afraid of guns. There are various categories of anti, ranging from the neighbor who gets nervous if a gun is in her presence, to the politician who is afraid of guns because he/she is afraid that the people will finally get fed up with their lack of response to the will of the people, and sees people with guns as empowered and independent.

 

[benEzra]

Anyone who advocates for further restrictions on what mentally competent adults with clean records can lawfully own, or who advocates for further restrictions on the right to use firearms for lawful self-defense, is anti, IMO.

If they support banning "assault weapons" (e.g., the most popular centerfire rifles in America) or magazine capacity restrictions, they are anti. "Gun rights for hunters only" is not significantly different from the gun-owner hell that is the UK (and keep in mind that fewer than 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners hunts).

I am OK with background checks, and can live with requiring a shall-issue license (at the state, not Federal, level) in order to carry, though I have no problem with Vermont-style carry either. But I do not support any further restrictions on lawful ownership and use.

 

[2nd 41]

I was chatting with someone and the Gun topic came up. His reply was "There is no reason for anyone to own a gun. NONE". I'd call that anti.

Also,heard gun owners say there is no need for AK's, Uzi's etc. I don't recognize them as anti's. They are jealous or not thinking it out. I compare that to saying we do not need 600hp cars on the street.

An anti to me is someone not wanting any guns around.

 

[Roadwild17]

There is definitely a difference between the person who things we dont need ^insert specific caliber or model^ but hunting rifles and shotguns are ok & is not out there doing damage to the RKBA cause and the person who things all guns are bad and is out there doing there part to see RKBA only in the history books.


The first person in my statement may be under the impression that an AK,AR,Fal is somehow "more evil" than a remy 7600, which is totally fine because its a hunting rifle.

 

[bdickens]

I see it as a continuum because there are some people you can reach and some you can't.

 

[Old Fuff]

In my book, an "anti" is any person that supports relulations and laws that affect what I can own and/or do. I don't impose conditions on others, and I expect them to do the same.

Those gun owners that support laws that restrict others so long as they don't affect them need to wake up and understand that sooner or later the gun control folks will get around to going after whatever they have.

 

[Harve Curry]

Old Fuff summed it up nicer then I could.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's about FREEDOM.

 

[22-rimfire]

I agree with Old Fuff now. These people are anti-freedom and anti-individual.

I have to admit spending as much time reading as I do on the forums has broadened my perspective on firearms. I formerly felt that EBR's were a separate issue in the gun control movement. I now see the divide and conquer mentality just like the class oriented campaigning where evil business and those evil rich folks are singled out for higher taxes. It works and it gets votes.

But I don't believe that EBR's are the most popular rifles in the USA as was mentioned earlier.

 

[The Bushmaster]

An "anti" is anyone that attempts to restrict me from owning and shooting any firearm I wish...

 

[Old Fuff]

But I don't believe that EBR's are the most popular rifles in the USA as was mentioned earlier.

During late 2007/early 2008 the NSSF took a survey within the firearms industry, and discovered that the sale of "tactical firearms" was running neck-and-neck with "traditional firearms." Since that time the sale of traditional arms has gone down a bit, while the sale of tactical arms increased somewhat until after the election when they skyrocketed. Of course the total body of traditional firearms is greater then that of tactical ones, but the widespread ownership of the latter is much larger then many people realize. Certain folks in Washington may learn this the hard way come future elections..

 

[deadin]

So, if the Great God of firearm regulations came to you and said "You can have any full auto or any caliber up to crew served weapons, any handgun with as big a magazine as it can hold. No more restrictions on silencers, barrel length, etc. No carry restrictions or who can have firearms. All you have to do is agree to give up shotguns." You would tell him to forget it?

 

[Aran]

Say someone was into hunting, shooting sports, an N.R.A. member, and collected firearms- but didn't for instance support open carry, and didn't fundamentally oppose certain limitations or qualifications (I.E. background checks, or even banning certain types of firearms etc).

Do you put them in the same class as the most radical of antis, or worse since they are "one of us" yet a hypocrite/traitor?

Yes.

 

[Kevin108]

I heard something that made a lot of sense yesterday. I was listening to Philip Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense League on an older episode of GunTalk and he says he subscribes to the "NATO" philosophy of gun rights:

"An attack on one gun right is an attack on all gun rights."

I can get behind that.

In the same episode, he referenced how gun rights were absolved from the citizens of Australia because of the blame circle of how collectors, hunters and pistol shooters didn't care when rights pertaining to "the other gun owners" were infringed. I see the same train of thought on forum discussions between those who chose conceal and those who open carry.

We have to stand together on our rights or we will fall together.

 

[Loomis]

An "anti" is someone that doesn't understand the constitution and won't accept the harsh realities of this world.

An "anti" is someone who can't understand why anyone would value an abstraction like freedom moreso than tangible things like comfort and security.

An "anti" is someone that imagines themselves superior to anyone that would contemplate violence of any kind even in self defense.

I clicked the second choice(grey area) although I'm having a hard time figuring out what would constitute an extremist on the side of legal gun ownership. An extremist on the gun grabber side is anyone that tries to ban or limit my access to some kind of useful defensive shoulder fired weapon.

IF you think I should not be allowed to own a full auto FN FAL or G3 or AK or AR, with armor piercing rounds, then you are an "anti".

 

[wacki]

A poem for partial anti's from Niemoller:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social Democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social Democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

 

[AZ_Rebel]

If someone does not fully support the 2nd Amendment they are an ANTI.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

 

[benEzra]

But I don't believe that EBR's are the most popular rifles in the USA as was mentioned earlier.

The most popular centerfire firearms. I believe .22 rimfires may still outsell EBR's most years, though probably not this year.

Keep in mind that when I said that, I was using H.R.1022 as the operative definition, which includes not only the AR platform, civilian AK's, etc. but also SKS's, mini-14's, M1 carbines, M1A's, and so on. It has been estimated that there are in excess of seven million SKS's alone in U.S. homes (which isn't far behind the Remington 870). I believe mini-14's have sold around two million, AR's are probably selling around half a million a year now (that will add up quick), and so on.

FWIW, here's an article from Outdoor Life on the topic from a year or two ago:

http://www.outdoorlife.com/article/Shooting/The-World's-Most-Versatile-Rifle/1

Well, it took me 25 years to come around, but I have to admit that, yes, Jimmy Q was right all along. The AR-15 carbine, the bastard child of a nasty jungle war halfway around the world, is indeed the Swiss Army knife of firearms. The butt-ugly poodle shooter has morphed into not only the longest-lived battle rifle in history, but in civilian hands a mainstay for competition, self-defense and, most recently, many flavors of hunting. In fact, walking the miles and miles of aisles at the 2007 SHOT (Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade) Show made it clear that "black rifles"---rifles derived from military platforms, like the M-4/M-16, the AK-47, the M-14 and the FN-FAL---not only are the best-selling rifles in America, but are the unequivocal driving force in the industry today.

The numbers are staggering. AR-platform guns are approaching handgun-level sales and may soon surpass even Jeff Cooper's mighty 1911, which has ruled the sales roost in the firearms world for the last two decades.

What's the best-selling ammo in America? Try the .223/5.56, standard fodder for the AR-platform guns. Other top performers? Well, there's the 7.62X39, food for the AK-47 and its hundreds of variants, and, of course, the .308/7.62 NATO, feeding the more traditional "battle rifles" like the M-1A, a hot seller, and the reborn FN-FAL. Last I heard, the best-selling "traditional" hunting caliber on the list was the .45/70, of all things.

 

[1911 guy]

My definition of an "Anti".

An anti is someone who either opposes firearms in general or opposes firearms not suited to their particular sport/recreation. For example, some politicians are "anti" because they see no need for us to have guns. Bubba at the trap range may well be an "anti" because he thinks nobody has any business owning a shotgun with more than three shots, any handgun, or rifle that isn't a bolt action or single shot. Kinda like the French, hates anyone that isn't one of them.

That's very different from my own view. I have no personal use for some types/calibers of firearms, but see no problem whatsoever with someone else having one (or several).

Just as an aside, I have experienced some of the worst anti *particular* gun behavior at ranges and clubs. Kinda like Zumbo, pre-enlightenment.

 

[mljdeckard]

I'm careful not to slam my friends about their level of enthusiasm just because they're not as active as I am.I want their help anyway.

Most Americans are either good gun owners, or neutral ignorant people who don't know enough about the issue to care. Our job is to show as many of them as possible that guns aren't evil. FIRSTHAND, HANDS-ON.

 

[XD-40 Shooter]

I consider an "anti" to be someone who thinks they have the right to tell what types of guns I can or cannot own. They base thier reasoning on pure ignorance. What gives the Brady bunch or anyone else the right to classify AR-15's and AK's as "unusually dangerous and lethal"? Who made them the experts? If a person feels they have the right to restrict what type of firearms I can own, they they are an "anti".

These people refuse to aknowledge the fact that the only thing that makes a gun lethal is.....THE INTENT OF THE USER!:banghead:

My XD has been sitting in my dresser drawer for 3 years, it (the gun) hasn't shot anyone.

 

[BBQLS1]

I picked the middle one, but the options don't exactly represent the way I feel. I wouldn't be comfortable with just anyone owning ICBMs, and I might be a little on the fence about full auto weapons (I don't think they should be restricted as they are now).

Some people are anti, just because they honestly don't know anything about firearms.

 

[yokel]

Anti means anybody who opposes the repeal of NFA, GCA, and every other stupid, useless federal law enacted under the guise of crime prevention and public health/safety.