Do most antis have reasons for being anti?

[Art Eatman]

I did gun show tables for thirty years. Never got a hot check, which oughta say something about the generic gun buyer.

All in all, this last half-century or more of driving the nation's highways, I've seen SOME shot-up road signs, but not all that many as a percentage of all road signs.

Seems to me that Ronald Reagan had more reason than Sarah Brady to take a disliking to guns. Nancy Reagan didn't go nutzoidal against them, either.

 

[Deanimator]

Like most folks with passionately held beliefs, antigun activists usually have good reasons for their opinions. Sarah Brady, for instance, had her family nearly destroyed one day because a crazy guy got a gun. I don't begrudge her that belief. She earned it.

So similarly, if a White guy gets robbed by a Black guy, you don't begrudge the White guy joining the Klan?

How about if a Jew does something to annoy a Black guy? Do you "begrudge" the Black guy hating Jews and joining the Nation of Islam?

People have an absolute right to have primitive, imbecilic "beliefs". They have NO right AT ALL to be RESPECTED for HAVING those beliefs. In fact, I have EVERY right to DESPISE them for HAVING those beliefs, and to PUBLICLY express my contempt for them AND their beliefs.

 

[Nushif]

I think at this point the debate, if we can call it that has boiled down to moral standards.

Take for instance the example of one of our posters who claims that because the "gun scene" has sound financial planning skills, it is somehow more validated in its beliefs.
Or for instance the fact that while people want sources for bad behavior on gun owner's ends, nobody has asked for sources on the "average anti."

Let's face it, folks. We're getting wrapped around the axle here not because of guns at this point, but because the issue is so polarized that it arguably is true that the "average gun owner" (and don't tell me they don't exist, we've been arguing on the basis that the average anti exists for a while now, we have to stay logically consistent) believes something fundamentally different has merit than the "average anti."

So how about we all admit that we've bought into this notion that somehow being a gun owner makes one at least predisposed to be of better moral (read: moral, not ethical) character. And I hate to say it ... you can't argue morality with someone who doesn't share yours.

 

[Neverwinter]

So how about we all admit that we've bought into this notion that somehow being a gun owner makes one at least predisposed to be of better moral (read: moral, not ethical) character. And I hate to say it ... you can't argue morality with someone who doesn't share yours.

And you definitely can't argue morality with someone whose foundation for that morality is based on superstition and logical fallacies.
See "Sarah Brady, for instance, had her family nearly destroyed one day because a crazy guy got a gun."

 

[mljdeckard]

No. I flat reject the notion that HighRoaders are not representative of most of the gun owning public. Gun owners are people who hold the means to use deadly force in their hands. Many of us every single day. And we somehow manage not to kill people. The exceptions to this are so rare as to be insignificant. I do not see at all that gun owners other than us here are idiots.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Invoking Brady

I've addressed this in the past.

[post=6549156]Brady is a fraud[/post].

by ArfinGreebly

For those who believe that Mrs. Brady is somehow justified in her rabid pursuit of the elimination of "assault weapons," it is worth remembering that her husband was shot with a small calibre revolver. A revolver, moreover, that had been in the shooter's possession for years.

None of the actions taken or proposed by the Brady Campaign has ever been consistent with or appropriate to that fact.

They never sought to ban small calibre revolvers. And none of the proposed or implemented waiting periods would have had any effect on the original incident.

The original shooting was nothing more than a springboard for an agenda to proscribe the manufacture, transfer, or ownership of the most effective tools that might be employed to resist forms of tyranny.

In some earlier posts, I think I've actually stated it better. By all means [post=3193095]have a read[/post] and see if [post=3621606]those remarks[/post] give [post=3622362]any more clarity[/post].

by [post=3193095]ArfinGreebly[/post]

She commits the same crime as Cindy Sheehan: using her "loss" as a club to intimidate and extort based on the "moral authority" conveyed by having experienced something awful, something she can assert an opponent has never had to live through.

"I am unassailable because I have suffered more than you have."

Similarly, you have to be nice to me, 'cuz I've had a bad day. It's nonsense of course.

It's contrived and dishonest.

The antidote to Sarah Brady is Dr. Suzanne Gratia-Hupp. This woman endured more horror than Sara Brady ever will and still landed right side up, with an accurate perception of the causes of her harrowing experience. You want moral authority? You want to talk to Dr. Gratia-Hupp.

by [post=3621606]ArfinGreebly[/post]

Sarah Brady's hatred of guns also comes from personal experience.

It's not the guns she hates.

Remember, she has her own guns. Whoever manages her security has guns.

It's not the guns.

It's YOU she hates. You refuse to do as you're told. You don't know your place. You're all uppity. You are a danger to the legitimate masters. You must be stopped, so your betters can have the control they need.

by [post=3622362]ArfinGreebly[/post]

Carl, Sarah Brady doesn't have a phobia.

She's not afraid of guns.

She carries a gun.

The whole "poor me, I'm a victim, look at my tragic husband" thing is an ACT.

People who have met her have marveled at the incongruity of her supposed fear of guns, her gracious and cool demeanor, and the fact that she will actually show people her gun, while saying that she doesn't mean to disarm everybody, just the "wrong people."

Sarah Brady is the queen of special pleadings.

She is a liar and a fraud.

Never, never endorse this woman or anything she stands for.

Never, ever attempt to justify her evil.

Instead, shine the brightest of lights on her dishonesty, her selfishness, her pretense.

Is there anything I can say to make that clearer?

 

[mljdeckard]

I want a 'like' button for the above post.

 

[texgunner]

As the news media learned a long time ago from the public educators - "Tell a lie long enough and often enough and it becomes the truth" (or words similar to that)

I believe that quote originated from Joseph Goebels, Hitler's propaganda minister.

The majority of antis are ignorant of the truth about firearms ownership and believe the often repeated lies of the Left.

 

[Neverwinter]

No. I flat reject the notion that HighRoaders are not representative of most of the gun owning public. Gun owners are people who hold the means to use deadly force in their hands. Many of us every single day. And we somehow manage not to kill people. The exceptions to this are so rare as to be insignificant. I do not see at all that gun owners other than us here are idiots.

It is the self-selection of being on this forum that automatically precludes this board from being representative of the gun owning public. Being a THR member involves a great deal of factors which skew the selection toward a non-representative subset of the gun owning population.
Also, it would be wrong to assume that there are no gun owners here that are idiots or that all of the non-idiotic gun owners have somehow managed to all log on here.

 

[LibShooter]

...if a White guy gets robbed by a Black guy, you don't begrudge the White guy joining the Klan?

How about if a Jew does something to annoy a Black guy? Do you "begrudge" the Black guy hating Jews and joining the Nation of Islam?

Nope. No grudge against anybody who joins the KKK or The Nation. Those folks have the same right to speak freely, assemble peacefully and petition the government as the NRA or The Chamber of Commerce... as long as the Klan and Nation of Islam refrain from violence. I've never heard of The Brady Campaign burning a giant revolver on anybody's lawn.

The Brady Bunch operates pretty much like the NRA... they try to influence public opinion and government policy by disseminating the info THEY like and putting pressure on lawmakers. The fact that you and I disagree with them doesn't mean they can't push their agenda. The Bill of Rights protects their right to be wrong.

If the Bradies (or the KKK or the Nation of Islam) convince lawmakers to do something unconstitutional, I blame the lawmakers, not the private citizens exercising their rights to express themselves.

 

[hemiram]

I think my sister became rabidly anti gun for a couple reasons. One, she runs in a very antigun crowd, and when we were kids, two people we knew, one a cousin of my dad's committed suicide by .38 revolver. The cousin did it in front of a couple who came into my dad's store to buy a gun.

 

[Deanimator]

Nope. No grudge against anybody who joins the KKK or The Nation. Those folks have the same right to speak freely, assemble peacefully and petition the government as the NRA or The Chamber of Commerce... as long as the Klan and Nation of Islam refrain from violence. I've never heard of The Brady Campaign burning a giant revolver on anybody's lawn.

They have a right to be imbeciles.

They have NO right to be respected for it. I absolutely refuse to demean MYSELF by pretending to.

The Brady Bunch operates pretty much like the NRA...

...apart from the non-stop lying and trying to convince lawmakers to violate the Constitution, and to gull the ignorant and stupid into supporting it.

Yeah, other than THAT, they're identical...

If the Bradies (or the KKK or the Nation of Islam) convince lawmakers to do something unconstitutional, I blame the lawmakers, not the private citizens exercising their rights to express themselves.

So similarly, you don't blame Tom Metzger for talking those skinheads into beating an Ethiopian man to death with bats. After all, he was just "exercising his right to express himself".

Obviously, the "lib" in "libshooter" stands for "Libyan" and NOT "liberal".

 

[Bob Shoots]

We (gun owners and users) need to understand that whether we agree or understand the anti-gun person's reasons, when we fail to respond rationally and reasonably, we give them ammunition to perpetuate the belief that guns (and gun owners) are not to be trusted. Some of the statements made by gun owners (some of them, self-proclaimed "gun nuts") can easily lead to anti-gun fears of the gun owners. That will hurt our cause more than anything the press can do. Please respond rationally and respectfully to the ant-gun people you meet. Being viewed as a rational person will help your case more than adamant recitations of "...from my cold dead fingers."

 

[LibShooter]

So similarly, you don't blame Tom Metzger for talking those skinheads into beating an Ethiopian man to death with bats. After all, he was just "exercising his right to express himself".

There is a difference between lobbying for legislation and conspiracy to commit murder. I confess I don't know where the line is, but it is somewhere between Brady and Metzger.

...apart from the non-stop lying and trying to convince lawmakers to violate the Constitution, and to gull the ignorant and stupid into supporting it.

Here's one reason our side is not making more progress. We know we're right. Therefore many of us believe the other side's leaders must be evil and their followers must be stupid. First, it's hard to win fence-sitters to our side by calling them ignorant.

But, more importantly, we are underestimating and misunderstanding anti-gun leaders. This is an issue reasonable people can disagree on. I wish the founders hadn't put the first clause in the Second Amendment, but they did. Let's be honest and admit it muddies the meaning of the clearly written second clause.

Folks like the Bradys are wrong. But for the most part they believe what they say and are saying it because they really think they are doing good. That's not lying... that's being wrong.

"Libyan" and NOT "liberal".

Give that another try. I think you can come up with something better.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

Originally Posted by Cryogaijin
Paladin7: I've spelled your name correctly, try to get mine right.

Just because there are a ton of people misusing a term does NOT mean it is correct to misuse the term. If you had used the term "Statist" I wouldn't have objected. The problem here is that just about everything that describes a classic liberal describes me. I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a republican, I'm not a libertarian, I'm not a communist, I'm not a socialist, I'm not a totalitarian, I'm not a conservative. I'm a progressive, liberal, conservationist gun-owner.

People who slander the concept of liberalism are slandering me. You can be the nicest person in the world, but the moment you start frothing at the mouth about "liberals" you've lost me.

Thank you Cryogaijin---The definition of the word Liberal has been mutilated and used as a marketing word much like Assault Weapon, and High capacity murder clips. Just as you poke fun at those that incorrectly use these firearms related terms, and urge them to do research to find out their true meaning--- I would invite you to do the same about the definition of Liberal.

 

[Deanimator]

There is a difference between lobbying for legislation and conspiracy to commit murder. I confess I don't know where the line is, but it is somewhere between Brady and Metzger.

Precious little difference. They're lobbying for legislation which would make it IMPOSSIBLE to defend myself from such an attack. They lend aid and comfort to the Metzgers and the John William Kings.

First, it's hard to win fence-sitters to our side by calling them ignorant.

You need to SHOW them they're ignorant, and ESPECIALLY that they're being LIED to. In my experience, they get unhappy when they find that out.

But, more importantly, we are underestimating and misunderstanding anti-gun leaders.

I understand them every bit as much as I understand David Duke and Louis Farrakhan.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

Quote:
First, it's hard to win fence-sitters to our side by calling them ignorant.

You need to SHOW them they're ignorant, and ESPECIALLY that they're being LIED to. In my experience, they get unhappy when they find that out.

--Well Deanimator you are on the right track, but trying show someone that they are ignorant, and then getting them to take your side is bordering on impossible. Just look how well it has worked in this thread, or many others that have cropped up lately that seem to cause a divide on THR (the Ted Nugent thread for instance). I think a better idea is to allow people to realize their own misconceptions, unless they are extremely mature, and very good at self analysis.

 

[Deanimator]

I think a better idea is to allow people to realize their own misconceptions, unless they are extremely mature, and very good at self analysis.

HOW are they going to "realize" them, when virtually EVERY thing they hear is misinformation or disinformation CALCULATED to REINFORCE those "misconceptions"?

Movement anti-gunners operate on the same intellectual and moral level as Holocaust deniers. Their INTENT is to deceive.

Where do you think the Holocaust deniers would be if 95% of fiction and non-fiction TV, and 99% of movies repeated their talking points? How about if the schools did the same thing AND encouraged students to become involved in the movement?

The gun control industry is a structure of LIES. Without breaking through those lies, it would remain inviolate. Fortunately, people have been VERY vocally pointing out the lies, especially those about concealed carry.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

It is done slowly, by face to face contact. How many gun owners are there?

 

[Nushif]

This is getting insane. Are some of you people reading your own replies? It's about as far from "civil discourse" and "rational exchange of thoughts" as it gets!

Would *you* be swayed by someone using the kind of fervor and fanaticism you're writing?

Relax. Acknowledge their point of view and go from there, but simply saying "You're lying, you're wrong and I disagree with all you say" is hardly effective. And that's pretty much what's been happening.
Let's see if we can find an image to compare this to ...
You don't see missionaries yelling, screaming and telling the locals their beliefs are "ignorant" or "wrong." At least no successful ones.
Why do you think you'll convert an Anti in any other way than a missionary?!

 

[HGUNHNTR]

^+1 I keep coming back here for the small rays of hope that sometimes shine through.

 

[Heretic]

Sara Brady said "We cannot create the communist ideal in America so long as the people are armed and able to resist us". I'm looking for the source right now and will post it when I find it.

This is a touchy issue, and perhaps it would be better if we all calmed down. Get a coffee, have a smoke, and agree to disagree.



P.S. Please don't confuse a liberal with a leftist.

 

[Nushif]

You know what the ironic thing is?

In a truly leftist state the whole population should be armed for easy revolutions in case the populace gets tired of the currently elected government and the government went corrupt.

I think a lot of local lefties really don't quite understand their own doctrine. Not that most other do, but they at least should.

 

[happygeek]

In a truly leftist state the whole population should be armed for easy revolutions in case the populace gets tired of the currently elected government and the government went corrupt.

Once The Dear Leader gains power, anyone advocating a repeat of the method he used to come to power is a counter-revolutionary and is sent to the gulag for re-education.

I was talking to a guy from Australia awhile back and the funny thing was I don't think his media makes much or any mention of the fact that the gun laws in the U.S. vary wildly depending on the state. I'm guessing his news sources give him the impression that D.C.'s murder rate is occurring in a place with Vermont's gun laws. He was saying that the U.S.'s gun laws were bad and I simply asked him "which state?".

If you were talking to a guy who was saying "we should ban assault weapons!" I'd ask him exactly what constitutes an "assault weapon". Ditto for "cop killer bullets" and a couple other buzz phrases the anti-gun groups love so much. If the guy has any curiosity at all he'll look the stuff up on Google and Wikipedia and realize the anti-gun groups are taking him for a fool.

I wouldn't call him ignorant to his face though. I might call Paul Helmke an idiot though, he did say AZ was one of the few states that doesn't ban multiple round magazines after all.

 

[Cryogaijin]

"cop killer bullets"

The hilarious thing with this concept is that it would actually be trivial to come up with a formula that would give definitive data on this. "This much energy spread out over this much sectional area will penetrate a class 2 vest" etc etc. It is simple engineering that can be backed up with exhaustive testing. But do the anti's do it? NOPE. They think things like spray-on teflon or a soft iron core will make a bullet Armor Piercing, because they saw it on Lethal Weapon.

IMO, Lethal Weapon 3 would have been more interesting if the baddies were wandering around with Tokarevs. . .