What do you consider an "anti"?

[scythefwd]

Loomis,
To me, an extremist for the pro rkba would be the person who gives a person who has stated a wish to shoot his neighbor a gun because he hasn't commited a crime yet while actively enabling said person to do so after the intent to commit the crime has been stated. I voted middle, but to some people here I am an anti. I own firearms, I also believe there are reasonable restrictions on that right. I do believe that giving a violent and (clinically) insane person a gun should be illegal (which it is and I have yet heard someone say it was a bad idea). The second amendment doesn't address this issue specifically but does indirectly state that this regulation (which I consider reasonable) is unconstitutional as it infringes on that person rkba.

 

[scythefwd]

So, fluff, if it doesn't affect you, it is ok? Just trying to get a clearer picture of your opinion.

I assume that you would vohemiently oppose any law that said nobody could have firearms but old fluff who could have anything he wanted. I don't think anyone who would support that law could be considered anything but anti. I know that is completely unrealistic and would never happen, but anti is as much philosophical as it is action.

 

[Ditto_95]

Any "gun" is protected under the 2A. A response other than that is "anti"!

 

[jlh26oo]

Good examples of theoretical extremist on the other end S.T.F. I have a feeling very few of us would be O.K. with M.H./M.R. patients' unrestricted purchase, and age restrictions are even a finer line. I think we all agree children and clinically insane should be restricted to a certain extent, but I'd be surprised if we all agreed at what age that should be and who determines to what degree and type of mental disorder.. because THEY might be wondering what part of "SHALL NOT" it is that WE don't understand, right? Similarly blakenzy differentiating degrees of antis so to speak, depending not only on their stance, but according to how active they are. Hadn't considered that. A fine line there too, between personal opinions and actively supporting, especially with the internet. From voting on a poll, to off-hand comment in a thread, to dedicated blogs etc. Gray areas.

Otherwise, "you're an anti if you are O.K. with limits on what I can get, but I'm not an anti if I'm O.K. with limits beyond that" (specific firearms and generally who can buy them) comes off as a double-standard at best.

 

[sturmgewehr]

If you're of the mindset the 2nd Amendment is for "sportsmen" and "hunters" and you believe certain classes of firearms should be illegal while your "sporting" arms should be protected - you're an anti of the worst order.

I would rather deal with someone who thinks all firearms are bad and should be banned than a cancer from within like the type of person I mention above.

 

[yokel]

Alas, it seems apparent that over the years and decades a significant number of folks who like to think of themselves as supportive have become inured to at least some regulations and restricitions.

For example, Americans have already been propagandized into believing a collection of myths that paint machine guns and shotguns with a certain barrel length as intrinsically evil and the right tool for a thug, gangster, and hoodlum.

 

[22-rimfire]

Obama said or published that he was against restricting firearms for hunters or sportsmen. That is just like what John Kerry said during his campaign 4-years ago. He also believes in common sense firearm regulation.... there lies the problem as it is his common sense, not mine. He does not think Americans should be allowed to own handguns or EBR's. I would be willing to push the list of what he feels are acceptable guns to only ones that the Australian government allows and to purchase and own requires qualification for a permit/license and essentially no rapid fire firearms for anyone including 22 rifles. That is scary to me. I will spend my money fighting any legislation that restricts the ownership or purchase of a any firearms or accessories beyond the laws currently on the books. I would favor further relaxation of federal laws that restrict purchase and ownership of firearms, but I'm not holding my breath that anything significant will be changed in this regard.

Obama has a flawed reference point when it comes to firearm ownership and use.

Alas, it seems apparent that over the years and decades a significant number of folks who like to think of themselves as supportive have become inured to at least some regulations and restricitions.

True. Those that have been born since 1968 and that is most have never lived when firearms ownership was less restricted and are used to the concept that the government can dole out rights and permits as it sees fit.

Anything that diminishes or limits the at right to keep and bear firearms is anti freedom.

 

[22-rimfire]

If you're of the mindset the 2nd Amendment is for "sportsmen" and "hunters" and you believe certain classes of firearms should be illegal while your "sporting" arms should be protected - you're an anti of the worst order.

I would have to disagree with you. They are not an anti- of the worst order and they are not a cancer to be cut out. If you believe in the right to keep and bear arms in general, they can be taught to see the light.

Many of these people voted for Barack Obama in the election. They would say that firearms are not the No. 1 issue upon which they cast their vote and disregard the extremist view propagated by the far right that Obama will further regulate firearms sales and ownership. They simply say it will never happen.... which I can not agree with, but that is the way they view things.

 

[Harve Curry]

People get so attuned to being regulated they don't know their being regulated.
Some even think you have to have a nics check or paper work drawn up to sell a firearm face to face, you have to do it anywhere and everywhere in the USA!! Well you don't. Some states still have freedom like it was at the turn of the 19th century. Freedom is just that. You have to learn to read a sentence like the one below and go by the defintion of the words, or you will sink us all, period.

 

[Beatnik]

I've often said before that there are three types of people in the gun argument.

A small minority of well-researched pro-rights pro-gun types,
a small minority semi-researched emotional anti-gun grabbers,
and the vast majority of people who just haven't put any thought into the issue.

If you don't own guns, never shot one, and it isn't part of your voting decision, you're in group three.

If you own guns, hunt regularly, own an NRA life membership, and vote to uphold your sportsman's heritage, you're still in group three.

 

[Zangetsu]

I personally think "arms" does not pertain only to guns, but all and any weapon someone wishes to have, be that a sawed off shotgun or a sword. I also believe that we have the right to possess and carry said arms around with us on our person if we so choose. No, I wouldn't lug a katana around with me if given the opportunity, but there should be nothing stopping me from doing so if I wanted to. I think restrictions on the size of the blade on a knife one can legally carry are just as silly and just as dangerous as the stupid arbitrary restrictions placed on firearms. The same people who made the laws that say that a knife with a 6" blade going to land me in jail when a 4" blade is A-OK are the same ones that say a pistol grip on a rifle makes it evil.

 

[Audrey]

If you're of the mindset the 2nd Amendment is for "sportsmen" and "hunters" and you believe certain classes of firearms should be illegal while your "sporting" arms should be protected - you're an anti of the worst order.

I believe there was a recent thread here discussing this very stance. In fact, it is the position of one of the NRA board members. And while I don't believe it is the "worst" anti stance, it certainly is curious why one would be allowed to have it at the NRA.

That said, anyone limiting my RKBA in any way is an anti. If I were to limit your ability to breathe in any way would I be anti life?

 

[TEDDY]

2nd absolute

what would you do if you were me ??I grew up with no gun buying restictions.
only untill 1968 law came into effect,you could by any thing.20 mm antitank guns $100 ammo $1.rd.mgs if you paid tax.no checks.walk in store and buy walk out.I still feel that way.as to people who should not have guns,they get eliminated any way.its a tricky slope as who is unfit to own???you me him.
"every body is crazy except you and I and I am not sure about you"
think of that."pryor restrant"

 

[Zangetsu]

no checks.walk in store and buy walk out.

This makes a good point...for DECADES it was legal to walk into a store and walk out with a fully automatic weapon, and they didn't seem to have the issues we do today with mental defectives opening up into crowds of innocent civilians. The mentally ill have always been around; we shouldn't have more crazies today than we did in yesteryear, so why do we suddenly have a rash of things like school shootings? Obviously it's not from guns being so available, because they were even easier to get in the past when these issues didn't seem to exist.

So this has me wondering...were there always problems like this, with some maniac shooting up a bunch of people for no good reason with the only difference being that today it's just super highly reported, or is this really something completely new to today's society?

 

[deadin]

the only difference being that today it's just super highly reported, or is this really something completely new to today's society?

I think that Television, Video Games and the Internet (i.e. YouTube, etc.) might be added to the mix.

 

[TAB]

Mine is, its ok for one group or person to have something, but every one else can't


Example, gun laws that are passed to restrict something, but its ok to have it if you work for the right person. Another perfect example is Dianne Feinstein... its ok for her to have a CCW, but no one else should.

 

[scythefwd]

Teddy,
I do believe that society was different in 68. The crimes aren't new, but I think the prevalence of them in society and societies acceptance is. Yes, it is more widely reported and therefore the trend looks to be worse on the surface. I will admit to that but I do believe that murder rates per capita are higher now. I blame this pretty much solely on how we are raised now days. Back in the 50's and 60's, respect was taught and practiced. Today there is a sense of entitlement that lets people justify anything to themselves as long as it makes them happy or gets rid of an inconvenience. Back in 68, I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that you wouldn't think about honking at someone that just cut you off. Today you have to think about it because it isn't unheard of to people to pull over and shoot the person that honked (heard of several last year in DC, where I work, and in NJ as well). Back in 68, society was more mature and considerate, which promotes responsibility and allows for no regulations. Today I would say society as a whole is immature and needs some rules until we can grow up, just like a toddler.

 

[Loomis]

Balkanization.

THis is the difference. In the old days, People were expected to assimilate. Nowdays, assimilation is racist. So now we have people that hate eachother for their differences, when before we weren't ALLOWED to be all that different. We all said the pledge of allegience every morning and sang a patriotic song. We all went to public schools We all were eligible for the draft and many of us WERE drafted and served admirably or were kicked out.

In the old days, employers were loyal to their employees and employees were loyal to their employers. THe supervisors and managers and even the new owners were chosen FROM THE EXISTING WORKFORCE in that company. THe owners kid was forced to do every lowly job in the plant before putting on a tie and playing yes-man to his daddy. NOwdays the kid doesn't want anything to do with the company, he just want's his daddy's shares when he dies. Nowdays, the supervisors and higher ups have never even seen the inside of the plant and are changed more often than the secretaries are. They give eachother golden parachutes and the run away after raping the company.

Everyone is in it for themselves. To hell with the other guy. Kill him on the freeway if you can get away with it. screw the world. It screwed me so I'm getting even. To hell with the government. To hell with the rich people. To hell with the military. To hell with the poor people. To hell with the immigrants. To hell with the old white guys. To hell with the rednecks. to hell with the environmentalists. Just give me mine or I'll kill you for yours.

Bring back public schools the way they were in the 50s 60s and early 70s and most of this crap will start to dissappear.

That's my theory.

 

[scythefwd]

Teddy,
While you said it more fiery than I did, I agree 99%. There are a few out there that would rather walk away than fight and have learned to be content. I would hope that I am an exception. I guess we will wait and see on that one, cause my employment record doesn't show it (3 contracts in 2 years) but I really can explain that.

 

[scythefwd]

Sorry Teddy, I mean Loomis.

 

[Harve Curry]

Loomis,
You said a mouthful of true stuff there. Quick story to illustrate more on what you wrote:
My mothers side imigrated from Italy and Sicily in the 1890's to early 1900's. Grandma lived well into year 2000 getting to see two centuries like she wanted. She used to tell me how her parents wouldn't let her or her brothers speak Italian, moved them to a German neighborhood on Kaiser Wilhelm Blvd, NY, which was renamed because of WWI. She won a $25 War Bond for good grades. To celebrate the end of the Great War the school had a "Bond Fire". She threw her $25 war bond in the fire with the rest of the kids to show their patriotism and " help Uncle Sam" as she put it. They wore red, white and blue hats on parade so from above they looked like the American Flag. Granpa came over and learned english, went and fought in the trenches of WWI France. His cousins lost a grape vinyard in southern California for a airstrip that the Army needed for WWII. Always they were Americans first. Not some ethnic name in front of American. If you pressed them on a application or something it was American of Italian decent, not Italian-American. They didn't believe in bilingual paprwork either. If you were American you spoke, read and wrote english.

 

[texaspunk]

What would make one an ANTI? If someone were not minding THEIR business and had their nose in MINE...especially if what 'they wanted for me' was in opposition to what I had deemed best for my family. If that view is extreme, then I guess I'd better learn to be more comfortable with that label. No wiggle room on this one I think…telling folks how to live is a slippery slope, as we’re finding out.

 

[Harve Curry]

"anti" is relative. It's more a continuum with gray area issues and extremists at both ends

The polls middle choice is much like Bill Clinton's view of the Constitution & Bill of Rights, that it's a flexible framework you can work within, las in a revocable living trust.

 

[user3214]

D'arcy from "Married with Children"

 

[WardenWolf]

It's not a failure to support. It's anyone who actively goes against, via voting or public campaigning, gun rights of any sort. An individual may think what they will. Most firearms owners will vote against anything that will restrict gun rights, even if it only concerns a firearm that they don't own and never intend to own. There are some wolves in sheep's clothing, and I would fully classify those as anti's if they, in any way, vote to restrict gun rights.

Bottom line: if you vote or campaign against gun rights, at all (with the exception of certain totally wackjob proposals), you're an anti. It's all or nothing. You cannot afford to give any quarter because eventually they'll come for your hunting rifle.