People hear what they want to hear.
I agree that there are plenty of people out there who are ruled by their emotions. Some of them will listen to reason, some will not. But the people I am worried about are not those who are irrational, or ignorant, but those who know very well what firearms mean to free citizens. I am afraid of the politicians and power mongers who need to strip us of our rights, our independance and our self-reliance in order to subjugate us completely. They recognize that the police can not protect us as individuals, but they try to convince us that we can rely on the government for everything because that means they have all of the power. Those are the people I am worried about.
The vast majority of anti-s are not stupid.
On the contrary, they are typically well educated people.
That does not mean they are NOT ignorant to reality, or if they are involved in politics or education, that they do not have some sort of agenda to follow.
They also have a skewed perspective that somehow educated and refined people do not need such barbaric means and tools with which to protect themselves, when they have the police.
What they lack is the very important history lesson of what happens to "civilized" societies when governments and dictators begin to "clean house", no matter when or where in history it occured.
Here is a site I like to reference.
Make a choice
It has some straightforward, and logical perspectives, that even very bright people should be able to grasp.
So long as they have an open mind.
^^^Thats big talk little britches^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Care to back that up with some statistics, of what anti gun politicians the NRA told people to vote for.
They will tell pro gun voters to vote for the lesser of two evils , but FAIK they have not endorsed an anti over a pro gun candidate.
So in essence they did back a candidate the was less pro gun than the Republican running against him.
This thread needs to drift away from politics quickly, folks, or it will have a very short half-life.
‘‘Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.’’
— Mahatma Gandhi, "Gandhi, An Autobiography", page 446
William Worthy, a journalist who covered the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, reported that once, during a visit to King's parsonage, he went to sit down on an armchair in the living room and, to his surprise, almost sat on a loaded gun. Glenn Smiley, an adviser to King, described King's home as "an arsenal."----from the article "MLK and His Guns" by Adam Winkler, professor of law,UCLA
Being a pacifist does not mean that you should roll over and submit to any and every bully that comes along.--- me:)
I can't help but notice where this article came from: "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership". I'll bet they have some historical insights on our gun-grabbing police state mentality that most people can't relate to. :rolleyes:
Gandhi was anything but a pacifist he was all for action just of the non-violent variety.
BTW his name was Mohandas K. Gandhi, Mahatma is a descriptive term kind like Holy man.
It would be a bit more arrogant than Gandhi really was for him to call himself Mahatma. sorry my Jeopardy self just jumped out and asserted itself... carry on.
Sorry about the thread-jack, but ....ZOMBIES
I don't care if other people choose to own a firearm or not...as long as they don't impose on my right to choose to.
The problem in ANY pro vs anti topic the sides don't talk to each other, they talk AT each other. There is no communication, only rhetoric. So a logical, well thought out position is irrelevant, because the other side isn't really going to listen. So trying to change the mind of an anti isn't going to happen, the trick is to get to the people before they make up their minds.
I though the article held valid viewpoints. It was an article not a doctoral dissertation.
As stated on tne forum by many on frequent occasion, the main reason for anti behavior is an irrational need to control others. Obviously an intelligent person understands that if you are not armed to protect yourself the risk increases. They understand the gun free zones create danger areas. They understand there is low risk that their neighbor will shoot them. And their own ability to decline to bear arms is never in jeapordy. Hence even if intelligent, they are not capable of rational thought on this topic.
I think it its a bit simpler than all that. I believe it is a I know I cant, so you shouldnt be able to either mentality.
Folks who deep down are very aware they simply do not have the mentality to defend themselves and must depend on LE or someone else to do it for them in my lowly opinion also resent the fact that others can and will. And as a result the if I cant defend myself and my family then nobody else should be able to defend themselves and their family either. So lets disarm everyone so we all have to depend on LE to do it for us.
Sounds simplistic I know. But I think it has more to do with it than you might think.
Very Good article!!!!!!!!.