Are Antis Enemies

[MagnumDweeb]

This was a rather odd thought I had a couple days ago when I was at the gym working out. I had three fellow patrons asking my First Steps Pistol class to get their CWP and one individual with a distinctly non-southern accent decided to barge in on our conversation. Mind you we are over by the free weights keepin our voices respectably low and not bothering anyone, and rather than this individual asking us to politely change the topic of conversation like some might when; speaking of politics and religion. Instead they start saying we are nuts, killing people(never have killed anyone and hope to never have to, and I'm pretty sure my fellow patrons hadn't either). And accusing us southernners of all kinds of horrific acts. I guess because we were white and southern we were bad people, that's not right, that's profiling.

And so I decided to ask them flat out about the 2nd Amendment and I got the whole only cops and soldiers should have guns and then I asked them about who they were and what they were doing with their lives because I'm trying to understand who these antis tend to be, because not all of them are bad people per se, just confused, missinformed, or cowards. And I realized after speaking with them and looking back on all my experiences and findings that---

Most antis have never served in the military, aren't doctors, lawyers, factory workers, or people who contribute to society in any real means or posses a skilled background be it in labor or academics. Oh some are law enforcement but that's more likely a matter in that regard of seeing the harm that bad people do with guns so I'll leave that sub-group alone. Oh sure there are politicians who are antis but politicians are easily replaced, I'm sure there are a lot more folks willing to replace them then are politicians wanting to replace the garbage men, firemen, and teachers in the general public. But this isn't a political post ultimately.

Most of us I'm sure take a kind but displeased eye towards antis. Thinking we can convert them if we have the chance to properly educate them. And some us ignore them, live and let live, and then are those of us who think "what exactly do these people contribute to America". I saw and read about Jesse Jackson marching in Chicago with folks in front of a gun shop calling it to be closed down (the shop wasn't even accussed of wrong doing, they just wanted it shut down) and preachers amongst the Chicago people calling for the deaths of gun shop owners who have complied with the law. Holder wants us to give up our guns so the murdering drug cartels in Mexico will somehow mystically be disarmed because they aren't getting guns from South America, South Africa, parts of the former Yugoslav, China, Indonesia, or the Mexican Military.

I've noticed that antis have yet to contribute much to society other than around-about-means for murder and crime to prosper like in D.C., Chicago, and California. Those gun bans have done a lot of harm, and absolutely no good. We aren't England where there is some controversy as to whether banning guns has helped any (keep reading English newspapers screaming bloody murder over shootings and stabbings, and all the big brother surveillance is impotent to stop it), we have a great many folks with machine shops in their homes, fertilizer fields on their farms, and the ability to put two-and-two together. Why should we be asked to sacrifice and surrender our rights, rights that if allowed so will accomplish nothing but greater suffering, when the problems that exist could be solved with means that don't violate the constitution. Granted they might insult Mexico, having that border fence upsets them even though it would better protect them from our Americans and their guns. And it would insult socialist Europe because we would still be free citizens and not subjects. But are not citizens, free peoples, an insult to anyone who preaches virtual self-enslavement, cowardice, and mediocrity.

I'm not a saint by any means but antis to me are masses of ignorant people who are threat to my safety and security. They represent the most uneducated and easily manipulated segments of our society. Yes are different opinions healthy for a democracy, absolutely, and they have every right to not own a firearm, but I don't believe they have the right to tell me I can't own a firearm. Hopefully in this 'panic' that's making ammo hard to come by, causing firearms to become ridicuously more expensive than most of us think they should be (whatever happened to good 1911s that didn't cost more than $300), there is a rallying call amongst us gun owners and soon-to-be or wish-to-be-gun owners, it looks like the Democrats(some of them at least) are getting it and making a public effort to resist the AWB. Still though there are antis in places of power, individuals who voice counter-constitutional acts and opinions.

Are Antis Enemies, I surely hope not. I like my peaceful life and I just want to work hard and make good money and get some property to enjoy. But there were times I'm sure when no one thought that the Nazis weren't enemies, the Bolsheviks weren't enemies, and so on and so on. I'm not advocating anything, just pondering some thoughts but maybe I'm be ing chicken-little, I hope I am, but I've been hoping for the best out of people for a long time and keep getting disappointed.

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Technically---enemies of the Constitution and therefore enemies of the Nation/State.

 

[hso]

not all of them are bad people per se, just confused, missinformed

Yep, those are the folks we can reach and hope to reach them here.

Some are dedicated antis who are not confused or misinformed. They understand what they're doing and why. Those are the folks we can't reach and have to work to defeat and remove from positions of authority.

 

[mossberg]

I view them as an opportunity to educate.

 

[Nicky Santoro]

Are Antis Enemies

Anyone who adheres to a philosophy which would strip me of my rights is my enemy.

 

[CoRoMo]

What hso said.

The dedicated/informed antis are in fact the enemy of liberty and freedom. The only way to 'deal' with them is to defeat their every effort.

 

[mljdeckard]

I'm with HSO too. There are many who are maliciously trying to restrict rights, but the majority of them really just don't know better. I am very careful to use tact and polite conversation around BOTH types. The ignorant shouldn't be tainted in the wrong direction, and it doesn't do any good to inflame the antis. I want them to get bored and move on.

 

[TT]

I’ve never bought the argument that a significant number of ‘antis’ are just ‘misinformed’. Gun hatred comes from a mindset that others are inferior and need to forcibly controlled by the state. Antis most certainly are my enemies.

 

[BCCL]

They are enemies in every way. They actively work to subjugate everyone else to their collective will and cannot be trusted in any way.

 

[MisterMike]

If I might, please allow me to pontificate . . .

There are "antis" of many types. Some are dedicated to eliminating your rights at all costs, regardless of the Constitutional or moral arguments to the contrary. Some are unfamiliar with guns and are opposed to gun rights because of that lack of familiarity and the messages that the news/entertainment media shove at them. And some are just plain unfamiliar--they're probably subject to being swayed, but haven't been presented with the moral and practical reasoning that we find compelling.

Having noted that there is a broad spectrum of antis, it seems to me to be counterproductive to start naming all those people as your personal enemies. First, it is an emotion-laden word, one that is often used to describe those whom the speaker feels must be eliminated: "I will lay waste to the cities of my enemy." "Bin Laden is an enemy of the American people and must killed."

So, if one is committed to using such an emotion-laden word, you must use it carefully and accurately, lest your words be used as a sword against you and your beliefs. In this instance, it seems that a more appropriate and accurate way of addressing this is to describe the antis not as "my enemies," but rather as "enemies of freedom," "enemies of The Constitution," or "enemies of the right to defend my family against predators."

One of the battles we must fight is the battle against the demons within--the anger that sometimes accompanies the belief that others are trying to take away something that belongs to us personally. Really, even here on THR, where reason tends to rule, I sometimes see proclamations that, if not untrue, are at least counterproductive, bolstering the belief of some that we are indeed "gun nuts."

If a person actively advocates restraints on Second Amendment rights, we should not be afraid to label him as an enemy of freedom. But if they simply are ignorant, uneducated, or unconvinced, we should not endeavor to drive them away from our viewpoint. This is far too important a freedom, and you risk frittering it away by overindulging your anger.

 

[Gunfighter123]

I think anyone trying to take away my ability to protect myself and my family IS MY ENEMY.

 

[DHJenkins]

If they're enemies in every way, then there's no sense trying to convert them, or talk to them, or shop in their stores. Don't let their kids play with your kids and for pete's sake don't let them marry into the family.

Naive? Yes. Uninformed? Yes. Your enemy? That's overstating the case a tad, don't you think?

 

[Just Jim]

Enemy?? What do you call a person who would take away your constitutional right to defend yourself and family?? A socialist.

jj

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Short answer, YES. Longer answer, They are my enemy, but they are an unarmed, witless enemy that will be easily defeated when the 2nd amendment requires itself to be enforced.

 

[Hk91-762mm]

We have a multitude of enemies.
For the most part it a culture thing- They hate us Out and Out WE Hunt -Kill animals. We can and have killed criminals who are there family members-They think if we had no guns the family member would be alive yet.
The major driveby media has brainwashed millions to beleave AKs -ARs spray bullets, These people are our enemies --They vote for the Antigunners ..
Even if you take an anti out shooting and they like it is by no means a determining factor in there voting -They might like shooting But Its not big on there list of fun things to do-so they dont care if thats a freedom they loose.
Frankly I dont blame teddy kennedy for all the antigun legislation hes pushed over the years --I directly blame the voters who elect him over and over ... !!

 

[RobNDenver]

No. They are not enemies. They are American citizens who happen to hold a different view than we do. Freedom to hold a contrary opinion is fundamental to our American way of life. I don't agree with anti-gunners but they aren't "enemies", "traitors" or any other pejorative terms. The polarization of views about one another weakens us as a country. We don't have to associate with Anti's but calling them enemies is over the top.

 

[rainbowbob]

...antis to me are masses of ignorant people who are threat to my safety and security. They represent the most uneducated and easily manipulated segments of our society.

I don't know about your neck of the woods but, here in the upper left corner, antis are my neighbors, members of my family, friends, and loved ones. They are all around us, and cannot be demonized without alienating ourselves from an unfortunately large segment of the population.

Speaking in generalities, they are not more or less ignorant or uneducated than gun owners.

I do believe most of them (excluding the sociopathic demagogues) are naive, misinformed, manipulated by the media, and generally fearful of something they simply do not understand.

Declaring them my enemies would be absurd and counter-productive to the cause of 2A freedoms.

I believe using every opportunity to encourage them to reconsider the facts as we know them - without hammering them over the head with it - will be more effective.

We only have to convert a relatively small percentage to obtain and/or maintain a majority of people who understand and support the 2A - irrespective of political parties and affiliations.

Conservative gun owners and 2A supporters should understand and accept that many liberals with otherwise opposing political and social agendas also support and defend the 2A.

 

[nwilliams]

They are not my enemies, they are simply people with a different point of view and opinion than mine.

I have anti family and friends and I wouldn't call them my enemies.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

"No. They are not enemies. They are American citizens who happen to hold a different view than we do. Freedom to hold a contrary opinion is fundamental to our American way of life. I don't agree with anti-gunners but they aren't "enemies", "traitors" or any other pejorative terms. The polarization of views about one another weakens us as a country. We don't have to associate with Anti's but calling them enemies is over the top."

People that hold a different opinion aren't antis. Antis are those of another opinion that are attempting to force it upon us. And yes, antis are the enemy. So, you go ahead and ignore the actions of your "friends" and stand there with your hands in your pockets when you can't have guns anymore, and I will continue to fight the enemy that would take them.

 

[slzy]

i certanly will not shop in their stores,and if they marry into the family,i consider the relative has married them selves out of the family.

compromise equals defeat.

 

[Deanimator]

In my experience, antis shake out 90/10.

90% of them are both ignorant and naive. They not only think that the police have a LEGAL duty to protect them, but that contrary to all reason and experience that they will. They assume ZERO responsibility for their own personal physical safety. They THINK they pay somebody else to do it. Some of them are jealous and resentful of those who CAN provide for their own safety, and believe that those people make them look bad. Many of them are barely in control of their emotions and assume everybody else is as well. They fear that if THEY had a gun, they'd do something stupid and assume the same of everyone else. A lot of them fear physical (and even verbal) confrontation more than they fear being robbed, raped or murdered.

10% of them are malicious. They're misogynists who fear that they'll be "mistaken for rapists". They're racists who are afraid that group "X" will kill them if they're allowed to have guns. They're nihilists who hate the very idea of anybody having personal autonomy, either from the state, criminals or ultimately from themselves. A few make money off of the victimization of others. They're "community activists" for whom self-defense against their criminal friends and relatives is a "problem" to be "solved". Above all, they're pathological liars who will say ANYTHING, no matter how dishonest or malicious.

You can sometimes sway the 90%, especially if they're faced with a self-defense situation. You can never sway the 10%. They're like the leaders of Holocaust denial organizations. They have a vested interest in victimization.

 

[DHJenkins]

Maybe we should define the term "anti"...

There's a difference between someone who is not likely to vote that doesn't like guns because they've never fired one and a person who just downright hates them and votes against them every chance they get.

 

[CapnMac]

"Enemy" is definitely a charged word. It implies 'hate' and hate is an emotion that requires great work to sustain.

Perhaps "adversary' is better terminology.

That's because this is a slippery slope like a three-story mound of talc. The antis are fully invested--mentally, emotionally, physically--in the police power of the state, which leaves them helpless in the face of the very real dangers out there.

If they are my true enemies, do I not go to their defense in time of need?
A question very vexing for our side, as the antis would sweep our ability, our skill, our willing ness to defend the defenseless into the dustbin of history. Meaning that when the Great Wheel of the State rolls thorugh their cherished ideals, then none would be able to stand to their defense. They will have stood by and done nothing, until They came for them.

The simple logic of how one makes the small as strong as the large escapes theml and there is little as infuriating as that action. They ask for "reasonable compromise." Well, lets see, wolves and sheep in a boat could have a "reasonable compromise" that all boat members ought to be allowed a ballanced diet--nothing outrageous in that, is there? Sheep don't eat meat, ah, oops . . .

Now, those who do know better, those would gladly elevate themselves to the nomeklatura, or be raised into feudal fiefdoms--those sorts are the danger. And even then, with what ought to be clear reason to sweep such to the durance vile they probably deserver, there is that vexin "probably."

This is an apt question, and one I fear with no easy answer--the easy question seldom having easy answer, no matter how much we wish it were so. I know I all to often fall into the pig-flying reflex--there being two main problems with teaching pigs to fly, one is that you annoy the pig, the other that it makes you look stupid. So, when faced with pigs, I'll often just turn away. And turning away means potentially ignoring one who only runs with the pigws, and would give up being swinish if only their eyes were open.

 

[Deanimator]

We don't have to associate with Anti's but calling them enemies is over the top.

Is somebody who wants to reinstate slavery or make Jews wear yellow Stars of David an enemy?

If so, why is one enemy of individual liberty an "enemy" but not another?

Anti-gunners want to, BY LAW, FORCE me to be a victim of violent crime, deprivation of my liberties or an oppressive, extra-constitutional government.

Anybody who wants to take my freedom or that of another person doing no harm is my enemy.

Sarah Brady and Diane Feinstein are no more my friends than David Duke and Louis Farrakhan. They're not just my enemies. They're enemies of the Constitution and individual liberty itself.

 

[HoosierQ]

Not sure of the proportion out there. But here in Indiana antis are split into a) the ignorant, and b) the real antis...the constitution re-interpreters.

The ignorants just don't understand guns at all and since our media provide only negative images...or rediculously heroic images like Rambo or Die Hard, they just don't understand. What they do not understand they fear. What they fear they resist. These people are not the enemy because they can be educated. Everybody had to go shooting for the first time right?

The real antis may well be the enemy on some level. They have an agenda and I don't think they can be educated.

Kind of like the difference between predjudice and bigotry...at least how I define and contrast the two terms. Predjudice (against whatever) is about ignorance of what is going on...people just don't know any better. Bigotry is an active hatred that implies a certain level of choice and acceptance of that hatred.

Some people, like I said, just don't understand guns so they fear them. Other are bigotted against guns and they are the enemy. Who is who in the power structure is a tough call because one cannot count on politicians to show their stripe...most of them anyway.