What Do The Anti's Really Want?

[Werewolf]

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.

Hence gun control. It's easier to just get rid of guns than change human nature - hence their solution is get rid of guns and no more gun crime. That's as far into the future as they are capable of thinking. It doesn't matter that then there'll be knife crime, club crime, fist crime - that can be dealt with later. Get rid of the guns now and we'll all be safer.

We won't, of course, be safer that is, because the balance of power will shift to the physically strong but that doesn't matter -antis can't think that far into the future or they irrationaly imagine that it's the inanimate gun that makes people evil rather than admit to themselves that some people are evil. Take away the gun and voila! - no evil.

Silly way to think but that's how they do it; at least the true believers and the dupes anyway. The politicians are all about power and control but they're not real anti's - they're all for guns - as long as it's them or those they control wielding them. And they're the ones with the power and are really the ones we need to worry about.

 

[Pants]

morons...whose biggest concern is...whether Tom & Katie's marriage will last

Wait a minute... wait just a darn minute here.

Tom and Katie's marriage WILL last, and on that question, sir, there can be NO ARGUMENT!!!

 

[Deanimator]

She is, that's precisely the point. She's not some evil, slavemaster politician, she's a humanist advocating what she sees as the best route. Nobody can fault her for it, just as nobody can fault you for doing the same thing.

Yeah, I CAN fault her for it, just as I can fault vegans who starve their infant to death by giving it an inappropriate diet, or just as I can fault someone who allows their child to die of treatable diabetes because they prefer prayer to insulin.

Stupid is stupid, regardless of the motivations. Rev. Wright, David Duke and any number of people with profoundly stupid ideas MEAN well. That isn't good enough. You have to DO well. If you try to impose your irrational, no ANTI-rational fantasies on others by force, all of your "good intentions" are so much pig manure. Not only CAN you fault people for trying to impose pernicious stupidity on others, you have a moral and intellectual DUTY to.

I loathe stupid people, and if they try to impose their stupidity on me, I don't make the slightest effort to hide it. It's one thing to wear your trousers on your head or smear feces in your own hair in the privacy of your own home. Those things are stupid, but they don't hurt others. 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.

 

[JasperST5]

What they do want is the same, exact thing you want: to have your opinion acknowledged and acted on at a national level, because you believe it to be the best course of action. The fact that this means increased governmental controls on their side is a means to an end; they're not seeking control for the sake of control, which is a distinction that is nearly always lost in translation.

That's a distinction without a difference. The way you control others on a national level is by seeking control via the government. It absolutely is seeking control for control's sake. It means that you want your will imposed onto others against their will. Our founders wanted as little government control as possible not as much as possible.

I doubt that most pro gun folks are libertarian, certainly many are but most?

 

[Low-Sci]

"Yeah, I CAN fault her for it, just as I can fault vegans who starve their infant to death by giving it an inappropriate diet, or just as I can fault someone who allows their child to die of treatable diabetes because they prefer prayer to insulin."

Just as they can fault gunners for kids' accidental deaths because their parents kept a gun. But what do we always say to that argument?

We always say that those are very rare cases and stupid individuals. The same applies here. They're far enough outside the bell curve that it's not really useful to spend your time on them. If you wouldn't have them do it to us, let's not do it to them.

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.

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.

"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. The entire point of the debate is to win converts so we have more people on our side. It's our argument to lose, and being uncivil probably won't help much if you ask me.

And even with all that said, it doesn't really change the effective answer to the thread's question. Even if we accept the premise that they're all stupid as roadkill (which I personally don't but you may), they still want the same things as us, and only differ in how to go about getting it.

 

[Low-Sci]

"It absolutely is seeking control for control's sake. It means that you want your will imposed onto others against their will. Our founders wanted as little government control as possible not as much as possible."

I know what the founders were after, but that's a topic for another thread, maybe one about the intent of 2A.

But I disagree with the assertion that it's control for the sake of control because it seems to say that it's all they want, which may be safe to say about some politicians but doesn't really fly at the ground level for them any more than it does for us. We all want to control the environments around us because we believe that our course of action will lead to changes that are favorable in that environment.

We'd like to control our environment such that we can carry guns, as we think it will make us safe. They'd like to control their environment such that people can't, because they think it will make them safe. These are differences in method, not differences in the actual want.

We see the expansion of CCW legislation as a means to an end. The point isn't arming everyone just so everyone has a gun, the point is arming people to increase the safety of our society. That seems a fair analysis. CCW legislation is a tool.

The same is said to be true for gun control: it's a tool used in an attempt to render society safer. Maybe it's wrong, maybe it's a deeply flawed tool, but it isn't the same as banning guns just so nobody has them - there's an underlying reason to said ban, just as there's an underlying reason for our advocacy of CCW legislation.

"I doubt that most pro gun folks are libertarian, certainly many are but most?"

Fair call, I should put that into context. What I mean by that is really strictly in terms of firearms. Ask a gun owner what he thinks about gun control, and you'll generally get an answer that sounds awfully libertarian. Other areas of politics, nobody can really say.

 

[yokel]

What they do want is the same, exact thing you want: to have your opinion acknowledged and acted on at a national level, because you believe it to be the best course of action.

We can reasonably conclude that how we think is not just mildly interesting, not just a subject for intellectual debate, but a matter of life and death.

They are subverting everything that is good about this country, and some of us still carry on like we are just gentlemen having a gentlemen's disagreement!

Honestly, if it was about complete control of the people, then it would be moving much quicker than this. We aren't like a police state or unitarian regime, where the country had to invest all of the power to just one select and small group without any say-so of who is in that group. We have three large branches , so you can move that out of the way.

Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall said, the "people made the Constitution and the people can unmake it."

 

[JasperST5]

We'd like to control our environment such that we can carry guns, as we think it will make us safe. They'd like to control their environment such that people can't, because they think it will make them safe. These are differences in method, not differences in the actual want.

We see the expansion of CCW legislation as a means to an end. The point isn't arming everyone just so everyone has a gun, the point is arming people to increase the safety of our society. That seems a fair analysis. CCW legislation is a tool.

The reason it's not the same motivation, i.e. control, is that is that it is not pro gun rights people seeking to impose their will onto others. They want to be left alone to enjoy the freedoms a free people should have. We don't want to arm anyone not interested. They should have the freedom to decide for themselves. We do not want the same thing, we want liberty, they want control. The antis and people like them is why the rebellion occurred in the first place, which is why I mention the founders. The founders knew and said on a number of occasions that freedom doesn't exist where the freedom to arm oneself doesn't.

* Alexander Hamilton - "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents,
there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense...." (Federalist No. 28)

* Thomas Jefferson - "strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and
independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent
for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion
of your walks." (Letter to Peter Carr) and "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those
who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ... Such laws make things worse for the
assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides,
for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (On Crimes and Punishment)

* James Madison - "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people
of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached
and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more
insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." (Federalist No. 48)

* John Adams - "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in
private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties or districts of a state, is to demolish every
constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of
the government," writes Adams. "The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and
commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." (A Defense of the Constitutions of the
United States)

* Benjamin Franklin - "The thoughtful reader may wonder, why wasn't Jefferson's proposal of 'No freeman
shall ever be debarred the use of arms' adopted by the Virginia legislature? They that can give up essential
liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[Leanwolf]

If people here want to know why the modern day "liberals" (as opposed to the "classic liberals" of the country's founding) must control each and every one of us, not just confiscate the firearms of us "worker peasants," you should without hesitation, buy a copy of LIBERAL FASCISM, The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, by Jonah Goldberg, Doubleday Publ., (c) 2007.

Amazon has it, or your local bookstore carries it or can order it for you.

If you buy it, you must also read the copius footnotes.

It is no conspiracy. These Progressives, or modern Liberals, actually Socialist Fascists, have never made any real secret of their eventual goal. They've been quite open about it, and their true believers have written hundreds and hundreds of books about how to achieve their goal.

I've read many books about how the "left" has taken over this country over these many years, seeking ultimate power and control in order to destroy individual Rights, individual Freedom, and individual Liberty. This is the most comprehensive, lucid, and informative book I've ever read. It defines specifically how the Progressive movement began in the late 1800s, drawing on the Progressive movement in Europe through Marx, proceeds through the absolute fascistic socialist dictatorship of Pres. Woodrow Wilson, on into Pres. Roosevelt's fascistic powergrab to institute government control over everything.

It shows how the overwhelming power of the Govt. has increased over the years until we are almost suffocating now with laws upon laws upon regualtions and bureaucracies and taxes upon taxes and more laws and more regulations, ad nauseum.

And never forget, that each and every law, regulation, rule, restriction, permit, fee, etc., is ultimately enforceable at the point of Big Government's guns.

The banning/confiscation of firearms is just one of the facets of a multifaceted political scheme to bring us all into their Great Brave New Marxist Socialist Fascist Police State Utopia.

(It's for the children, don't you know.)

Is there any hope to stop this gigantic locomotive and 200 car train racing at full speed to totalitaian Utopia?? I am not optomistic.

L.W.

 

[Low-Sci]

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

But these are again methods. The phrase "an armed society is a polite society" that is so often championed in our own ranks speaks volumes about what that liberty ought to bring: safety. We ought to be free to carry guns because then we are also free to see to our own safety.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"They are subverting everything that is good about this country, and some of us still carry on like we are just gentlemen having a gentlemen's disagreement!"

I love this country for much, much more than anything that anti-gun advocates could ever take away. I'm approaching this as a respectful disagreement because I don't think it would be helpful at all to make it a disrespectful one.

 

[Wetawd]

Does it stop at guns?

That's a good point Fake Name if they get rid of all our guns then it'll be swords, antique swords, kitchen knives, only people with a special permit will be allowed to own knives of any kind. Then it'll be any metal bar over 8 inches because u could hit somebody with that, and as a citizen u are an incompetent fool that should be closely watched because it's only a matter of time before u try to kill someone else.

 

[kiriath_jearim]

They want total obedience to their wills. Masters vs. slaves. Nothing less will do.

 

[bloodedsky]

"Hello there, Anti-Gun Person who is reading this site! We don't really mean half of what we say here, so you shouldn't actually view us as the megalomaniacal, egotistical, arrogant, close-minded bigots we come off as being." *offers a big, friendly handshake*

PS - Honestly, can any of us say that we *know* for sure why poverty exists in our country? Or how to fix it?

Anyhow, if you did know, what would it matter to the world at large?

 

[yokel]

I love this country for much, much more than anything that anti-gun advocates could ever take away. I'm approaching this as a respectful disagreement because I don't think it would be helpful at all to make it a disrespectful one.

Respectfulness is all very well, but please bear in mind that it is no more a gentleman’s game at times when the survival of our Constitution and liberty are at stake.

 

[lamazza]

They want to be blameless, guilt free and enslaved. And they want you that way too!

 

[misANTHrope]

Understanding your enemy and how he thinks is essential to defeating him, regardless of whether it's a friendly debate or an all-out war. Admitting that your enemy is rational is not synonymous with admitting that he's right, or with admitting defeat.

 

[Werewolf]

PS - Honestly, can any of us say that we *know* for sure why poverty exists in our country? Or how to fix it?

I do! But if I told ya then I'd have to - well you know...

Besides the answer is so obvious and so politically incorrect that it would be no answer at all.

 

[plexreticle]

The worst of deeds are of the greatest intentions.

 

[qwert65]

The politicans want power(on all sides except for a select few on both sides doing what they think is right)
As for the people voting them into office I really think it's laziness

 

[Low-Sci]

"Respectfulness is all very well, but please bear in mind that it is no more a gentleman’s game at times when the survival of our Constitution and liberty are at stake."

I would think that my presence on this forum would have acknowledged that without me needing to say anything.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Understanding your enemy and how he thinks is essential to defeating him,...

That - to me - is the key issue. Saying something really stupid about anti's and then have your friend slap you on the back and tell you that your a genius and a free thinker would be just be just boring - but because we live in a democratic republic, it's dangerous.

One of the strongest cards in anti deck is the ranting behavior of the pro-RKBA spokesmen!

When you accuse an anti of wanting to enslave you - and the folks watching the interchange know that the anti had no such aims, what does that do to your credibility?

When you start ranting that they are communists and socialists and they are not - by any intelligent definition of those words, why should anyone bother to listen to you?

Mike

 

[Focke-Wolf]

It does disturb me that groups that fund Brady,IANSA are banking cartels like Rockefellers etc. this is public info by the way.

 

[Kim]

This is my opinion. I believe the left wants to ban firearms because they first do not want to tackle or admit the real reason for crime. They generally do not like taking strong measures aganist even violent criminals. They want to rehabilitate everyone cause in the world view it is societies fault that we have institutions that cause people to commit crime (racism, capitalism, sexism etc. name your ism.) and if they can ban firearms then they can work on society to frown on self-defense (like England etc.) which makes a person more dependent on the STATE for self-preservation. They would like to somehow make it illegal through international law to defend yourself and make War illegal. I see it as a long term plan to social engineer society to their utopion view. Dangerous. But they already run the schools and will get the young generation to accept their agenda little by little. It is a death trap for the USA and the individual and probably the world. After all the UN really does not support individual self-defense already.

 

[Cuda]

I believe they want to live in a secure, safe world like all us us. However, IMHO they want the government to provide that life and we on the other side take that responsibility into our own hands...

C

 

[rainbowbob]

This is a very useful discussion to me because of a recent anti "freak-out" from some of my family. My family never had this discussion in any depth until I finally decided to accept the right and heavy responsibility of armed defense. We're just getting started trying to figure it all out.

I Thank THR for providing the perfect place to hold this meeting.