April 13th, 2011 01:37 PM
Question About the Anti Gun Movement
So i'm a few months into the learning curve here so please excuse my ignorance. I watched a bunch of NRA videos on You tube and have to ask why are the anti critics like Clinton, Bloomberg etc....why are they so anti? who is paying them off and why???? given the research that John Lott has done why in the world would they be anti? thanks for your help in my naive/newbie question.
April 13th, 2011 01:51 PM
Why are people anti anything? It's generations and generations of the way people feel about anything, be it religion, guns, sex, politics, etc. There's no magic potion that makes a person anti, it's the conglomeration of their life to date that forms them. It could be they were raised in a anti gun family and carry on the feelings or it could be they were raised in a pro gun family and are determined to be their own person to the point of revolting against all they were raised with.
If the answer to your question were known, we'd have one car company and one model car.
It's not a naive question, it's a logical one and it's one we all ask at one time or the other. Many of us ask that very question every day.
Welcome and keep on learning!
April 13th, 2011 01:58 PM
Specifically why are the politicians so anti? who is filling their pockets and why?
April 13th, 2011 03:36 PM
I think different politicians are anti for different reasons but I think most of the anti's in power are just afraid of people to be armed. They (politicians, police, etc) are the ones that are supposed to have the power, not the commoners. They use any argument to further the cause. Take a look at the ATF for example... They're looking to ban the import of shotguns if they have any one of some ridiculous feature that might be beneficial to law enforcement or military. If it has a rail mount for a light, (you know, the kind people favor for home defense) then its not a sporting gun and therefor you shouldn't be able to own it. They don't trust the average person to make the right decision. They're just looking for an excuse to ban something. Throw out the second amendment, throw out innocent until proven guilty, if you want a shotgun that makes it easier to actually hit the right target you're obviously up to no good and can't be trusted.
"Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense."
April 13th, 2011 07:15 PM
A long time friend of my sister is a liberal and an attorney (I know, I know). She posted on Facebook about how stupid the people are who love their guns, that something comes over them when they hold a gun, and how she hates guns.
What do you do with that?
I challenged her "logic" and gave her information. Will it help? I doubt it. Hate usually arises out of fear, and rational thought doesn't often overcome deep emotion.
He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliott
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
April 13th, 2011 07:45 PM
It's not about GUNS , it's about POWER.
Originally Posted by Rugerguy
Some people ( even rich and famous ones ) feel they have no control over life.
Taking away other peoples rights makes them feel powerful.
And most Politicians just want all the power for themselves.
-SIG , it's What's for Dinner-
know your rights!
"If I walk in the woods, I feel much more comfortable carrying a gun. What if you meet a bear in the woods that's going to attack you? You shoot it."
April 13th, 2011 07:55 PM
I notice a very great tendency in the gun community to attempt to demonize those who hold contrary views. John Lott's research is just one man's, not an entire field's, and far from indicting gun control as a policy it at best portrays gun ownership as a wash for crime.
Liberals disproportionately hail from urban areas: police help is closer and while sophisticated groups can simply hop out of the city to do large straw purchases at dealers who don't obey the law more unsophisticated street gangs will get fewer weapons in their hands if they can't buy them in the city. The fact is that the place where they are used to living also contains most of the country's population.
Why does someone need to be paid to realize that a gun is a better way to kill someone than a knife? Where is the government conspiracy, plotting to keep the people in bondage, necessary to explain the realization that spree shooters tend to keep going until their magazine runs out and they need to reload?
Most personal associates who are called "antis" by concerned board members don't even seem to want to ban gun ownership, and of those who want to ban concealed carry I'd imagine a short discussion of who the law is going to stop and the implications of "concealed means concealed" will sink in and soften their stance. When they make suggestions like "you shouldn't be allowed to avoid a background check by buying at a gun show" they are labeled as gun grabbers when all they want to do is stop people who we know have problems from getting very effective tools for killing people.
The fact that laws are made by politicians and not technocrats is one of the problems you need to put up with to live in the US. Perhaps if the NRA spent more time lobbying to ensure that gun laws were sensible and less time trying to ensure that there were no gun laws the politicians who gave the ATF their marching orders would be better educated and wouldn't ban silly things. It doesn't take an aspiring dictator to count the flaws in the system in, say, the Tuscon shooting; if one side *cough* the NRA *cough* says there is no problem and one side, we'll call them Brady, says the mere existence of the handguns is a problem don't be surprised if the politicians lean towards the side that agrees that something should be done.
April 13th, 2011 07:56 PM
You know, it's really hard to talk across political/belief lines because peoples feelings are hurt in the first place. My gut reaction to ignorant people talking about gun control is somewhere between disgust and rage.
However, if you want to change someone's mind, (I'm not talking politicians, but the people who vote them into office) you have to first show them some understanding. After a long long talk, I was able to explain to a childhood friend why gun control in the UK was a massive power grab by the government, and how since then, people's freedoms in the UK just keep getting rolled back. I was able after using this example to get a little glimmer of doubt in there, and just a little understanding. Tell people they are stupid, it just makes them get more stupid.
Anybody can get scared, but you must absolutely not let that affect your behavior. Cowardice kills. -Jeff Cooper
April 13th, 2011 08:10 PM
Being "anti" anything is not bad. It is when one uses lies or partial truths in an attempt to persuade others to support an idea, group or movement that really bothers me.
It is the "TRUTH" that is getting trashed in today's media and politics, if we let it continue it will damage the USA in ways that we may never recover from. I hope it is not too late.
LEARN something today so you can TEACH something tomorrow.
Dominus Vobiscum <))>( Where is the wisdom that we have lost in knowledge?" T.S. Elliot
April 13th, 2011 08:28 PM
Ya' can't fix stupid...
Originally Posted by Rugerguy
The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member[/B]
April 13th, 2011 09:27 PM
For many, it's simply an emotional thing. Logic will not win out in an emotional argument.
No THING, like a gun, is inherently evil or bad, that's obvious. On the other hand, what the antis say is true... if there were no guns, there would be no gun crime. But guns exist. Criminals have and use them. Why would you want to disarm the average citizen and take away his right to defend himself or his loved ones?
As to who's pockets are lined, both sides win. Folks are EMPLOYED by the Brady Bunch, and folks are EMPLOYED by the NRA. People like John Lott get paid to write books. He benefits. The anti's write books, go on talk shows, and make money to support the staffers.
Pols will go where the votes are... Illinois is an anti state only because the majority live in Chicago metro area... and they are true believers in Daley and now Emmanuel. All the voting power is in chi town, all the money is there, too. Votes = tenure= retirement= money... The politician without term limits is guaranteed an income for life... Even if he's booted out... He'll work for coporate america, he'll write a book, he'll go on the lecture circuit. Politics is "money for nothing and your chicks for free" (if you don't get caught.).
It could be worse!
April 13th, 2011 09:27 PM
I know I'll probably catch a lot of flack from the whiners for saying this, but it needs to be said. It is my opinion and thats all it is...
Why are Politicians anti? Two reasons that cover most of it...ignorance and/or their personal belief in a one world government.
Now here is a fact...a well publicized fact for those that can read......the United Nations is anti gun for one reason and one reason only. It's about power. As long as a man can fight back, he will only take so much abuse before being pressed into action. One can look at the loyalties of any politician and just about predict what their stance on gun ownership would be. It is no accident that many of our elected officials worship the U.N and all that it stands for. The charter of the United Nations states that one of its goals for the world is the elimination of private ownership of guns. Those that pay attention might note that in the last 25 years, private gun ownership has been severely curtailed in Canada,Great Britain, Australia and completely eliminated in many others. This is not by accident, but by design and its very subtle and its done in the name of peace and safety.
No government, no single power will come out and say...we are taking away your right to self defense...because it might wake some people up and cause rebellion. Instead, they use any murder,any catastrophe to whittle away the right to bear arms of any kind. They will make it seem like the sensible thing to do, they will try their best to make it popular and they will stop at nothing to make it happen. They use registration schemes and lies to see who has what and where, while ignoring the fact that history has constantly proved that the only reason for registration of any weapon,whether it be a gun or a spear is only for the purpose of confiscation.
In the long run it really only boils down to one thing...the age old battle of good verses evil, the same battle that has been fought since the beginning of time.
You either believe in good or evil or you don't. Those that believe in good, believe in a higher power than themselves and a Creator that gives us the right to life, and the right to protect it. Those same people also believe that there is evil out there and it never sleeps and that it will prevail if all attempts are not made to fight against it.
Being anti-gun generally tells me how a person thinks about many things...if they think at all. Some are anti because they don't know any better and they repeat only what they have been told. Others are anti because they are evil and their lives show it in many diverse ways. Some could care less either way...because they cant think for themselves and they choose to ignore reality. They are little more than cannon-fodder waiting in the shadows to be led to slaughter.
Its nothing new really...its been that way since the beginning of time.
I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
April 13th, 2011 09:40 PM
Pockets aren't being filled on the anti-side (for the most part) and it's a heck of a lot easier to propose a financial situation for the pro-gun side (through the gun companies and the NRA's lobbying efforts). It's about ignorance and thinking emotionally rather than logically. As was said earlier, Lott's research isn't the last word, and on top of that, Lott has himself brought doubt upon his credibility (the sock puppet stuff, the "losing" of research data, etc.). I prefer to use Kleck if I am going to cite a researcher.
As to the idea that anti-gunners are about power, I have no doubt that some at high levels might think that, but among normal every day people, anti-gunners are simply scared and ignorant. Guns are used to do horrible things to people and they are ignorant of or blind to the data. So they think the way most people do when confronted with a thing that is "bad" -- ban it! Restrict it!
One other thing that we must keep in mind is that the anti-side is not inherently liberal and conservatives are not immune to the same type of flawed thinking. Human's are emotional animals, and how they respond to issues is based on too many factors to count (NC Bullseye put it very well). This is why I keep up the probably futile effort to convince people that by demonizing liberals or anti-gunners, we are throwing away an untold number of potential allies. Liberals can be pro-gun, or more to the point, anti-gun people can be changed to the other side. I was one of them.
We have the facts. If you are discussing the gun issue, don't make it about liberals VS conservatives. Argue the issue itself and don't make it personal.
April 13th, 2011 11:17 PM
You see, screeds like the one HotGuns just laid out are exactly what I'm talking about: they're not looking at the facts and deciding that we should find a way to stop people we know are bad from getting killing machines, they're either pitiable ignorant fools or they're jackbooted thugs trying to make me a slave.
Go ask Libya how well their guns – and swathes of the army – are protecting them from their tyrannical government, by the way. Unless you're suggesting people start stockpiling B-2s, F-35s, and AC-130s you need to quit deluding yourself. If you're talking about waging an insurgency, consider the amount of insurgents killed in firefights versus the soldiers of a well-equipped government, and the government casualties caused by bombs versus guns. If the government wanted to turn tyrant and had the military on its side your guns would be a minor inconvenience, not the one threat against them; if the government wanted to turn tyrant and didn't have the military on its side, then some wannabe dictators would have a one-way ticket to Guantanamo Bay and we'd have early elections that year.
I don't even want to get into the whole "you don't need thirty-round magazines on your glock, and we need to verify that you are not a convicted violent felon or mental patient before selling you a gun" vs "you're trying to deny me my rights" discussion tonight...
April 13th, 2011 11:46 PM
The stuff HotGuns just said can be easily confirmed with a good 30 minutes of research. Referring to those who want the Constitution to be obeyed as extremists is hypocritical on your part. There is no constitutional authority for any federal gun control law on the books, and the "sensible" things you've referred to thus far have made no difference whatsoever whenever implemented, and sometimes have made things worse. Once you start to deny individual freedoms in favor of protecting "society", which is an abstraction, you simply harm both. IMO, you need to start thinking a little more about these things before you start running around supporting evil (collectivism), but only up to a certain level.
Originally Posted by CDFT
Search tags for this page
anti gun movement
anti gun movement in indiana
anti gun movements
anti-gun movement and election
anti-gun movements in texas
lies of the anti gun movement
organizations has been able to stop most recent antigun legislation
what is the anit-gun movement
when did anti gun movement begin
when did the anti gun movement start
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors