Common sense lost on "Anti's"

Common sense lost on "Anti's"

This is a discussion on Common sense lost on "Anti's" within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; With the landmark ruling by the Supreme Court, the liberal mass media were quick to trot out professors, medical doctors, politicians and citizens who decried ...

Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Common sense lost on "Anti's"

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array gwhall57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Midlothian, VA
    Posts
    542

    Common sense lost on "Anti's"

    With the landmark ruling by the Supreme Court, the liberal mass media were quick to trot out professors, medical doctors, politicians and citizens who decried the ruling as the court effectively opening the flood-gates of murder, robbery and rampage by gun-totin’ whackos upon the streets of the nation.

    Why do the Antis consistently (and, regardless of facts and figures, seemingly permanently) decry guns, and the law-abiding, gun-owning citizen, as the root of all gun-violence evil? How can they not understand the common sense arguments in favor of guns rights?

    The Antis preach a gospel of strict gun-control laws. They seem to cling to the notion that, with the passage of a few more highly restrictive gun laws that ban handguns, they will solve the problem of gun violence in our society today.

    This mind-set makes no sense at all to me. The vast majority of the people committing the crimes of gun violence (murder, robbery, etc.) are, as a rule, criminals – gang bangers, thugs, thieves, murderers, etc. By definition, criminals DO NOT obey the law. Let me repeat that point – criminals DO NOT obey the law. How, then, will enacting more laws have any effect on the criminals committing the crimes? The criminals already ignore the existing gun-control laws. What will be the effect of passing even more restrictive gun-control laws? The criminals will simply ignore them.

    There are very strict laws in this country regarding speeding on the roadways. Has this eliminated speeding? There are strict laws against driving while intoxicated. Have these laws eliminated drunk driving? There are already very harsh consequences associated with being convicted of killing someone, up to and including the death penalty. Has this seriously reduced the numbers of murders committed? Will more gun-control laws eliminate gun violence in our society?

    This argument, unfortunately, falls on deaf ears. Antis don’t, or can’t, make the logical connection between the policy of endlessly promulgating strict gun laws, and the actual (non) impact that such laws have on the amount of gun violence. What happened after the draconian gun-control laws in Washington DC went into effect? Did the murder rate decrease? In all but one year, the rate of homicides in DC increased. The amount of gun violence increased. In effect, the laws in DC just made the average citizen living there a helpless victim to any thug with a gun.

    To an Anti, a gun is inherently evil and dangerous, even when the gun is just lying on a table with no one in proximity. They blame the gun for being the cause of so many murders and robberies, instead of blaming the criminal intent of the perpetrator. They miss the point – if criminals have no guns, they simply arm themselves with some other device (knife, sword, club, tire-iron, etc.) to attack their intended victims. It’s not having a gun in hand that turns someone into a killer – it’s that person deciding to kill someone, and become a killer, that turns someone into a killer.

    To Antis, guns only have one purpose – to kill. I beg to disagree; there are legitimate uses for guns that do not involve killing – I use my gun to shoot targets. I enjoy shooting targets at the range, just as some people enjoy hiking, or sailing. I have put several thousand rounds down-range in my lifetime, and I have never, ever, killed any one. I may have used up a couple of trees worth of paper for the targets, but I have never caused any human being (or animal, for that matter) to die.

    My gun is also used for self-defense. Luckily, I have never had to use my pistol to defend myself, but I do keep it ready for that use. I am no longer “21 and bullet-proof”; I happen to be old, and slower than I used to be, and missing 1/3 of one of my legs. I would be at a tremendous disadvantage if I were to be accosted by a criminal or several criminals (they do seem to like to hunt in packs, don’t they?) – “easy pickings” is a phrase that comes to mind. I am no longer physically able to flee, so standing my ground is my likely choice. And for that reason, my gun is an essential survival tool – a great equalizer. I do not go out and seek danger, but if I am attacked, I can increase my chances of survival through being armed and ready.

    Antis always seem to believe that everyone should depend on the local police department for protection from criminal attack. That belief has a major fallacy – the police are not legally required to protect anyone. In addition to that fact, there are only so many police officers working at any one time. The chances that there is a police officer nearby when any one is attacked are very, very slim.

    All in all, it seems that, when one enters into the Brady-Bunch ranks, one must check one's commons sense at the door, where it is lost forever.... .
    "Bad spellers of the world - untie!"

    DAV Life member, NRA Life member

    Springfield XD 9mm Sub-Compact
    Taurus PT111 Millennium Pro 9mm


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    You're right about how illogical they are.

    The one that always gets me is, "If we can save even one life, it's still worth it to ban/regulate/etc. . . . "

    I beg to differ. Saving "a" life may or may not be worth it, but it doesn't even take into account the likelihood that lives may be saved, and harm may be prevented by people having the ability to defend themselves.

    And they certainly have no evidence that less restrictive gun laws will cause more people to run amok and kill people right and left. In fact, there's not a single circumstance they can point to where that's been the case.
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

  3. #3
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,124
    If they had common sense or logic...they wouldnt be "anti's".
    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...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  4. #4
    Ex Member Array Ram Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    13,687
    If they had common sense or logic...they wouldnt be "anti's".
    Exactly. The 'anti's' are already "lost", so their loosing common sense is in effect a non-issue. They're just all around total losers.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Array Musketeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    701
    Sorry but I did not read your entire post, too long.

    The answer to your question is simple though. Their position is based on emotion and any position based emotion is impervious to logic or reason. We may win some over but it will never be with facts and numbers. Only with emotional examples can it be done.

  6. #6
    New Member Array Dano50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    7
    Parden me for the intrusion. I have been a long time reader to this board, but, somewhat reticent in posting.

    The larger question seems to be, who (or what) is orchestrating the hew and cry of the "anti" crowd. The condescending derision of the so called "red kneck" hunting crowd by the (again) so called enlightened educated elite, villification of gunowners in the press and other media, patriarchal attitude of the governing body(ies)over their charges...all these are precursors to disarmament and subjugation of (up to this point) a free people.

    The pupeteers, (read, Soros, Bloomburg and anyone in the United Nations) appear to have a larger agenda. By appealing to a segment of the society (read "liberals"), they can propagandize imagined and exagerated "reasons" to disarm a population for the greater (to them) good. The fear, IMHO, is that a portion of the population can and will have a sense of self reliance in contravention of a governmentally mandated regimen, the "sheep" will follow the will of the governing body as long as that body continues to stroke their egos.

    Son of a union worker (shop steward), undergraduate degree in population biology with a minor in American Literature, Business Adminstration (accounting) and Tax degrees, and even I am derided by the local bureaucrats as "not understanding" the issues...

    I think our concentration should be on being vigilant and focus on what, perhaps, is the real driving force behind the ranting. I do believe the anti's understand the real issues, and, are fully cognizant of the real agenda.

    Anyone else?

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array goldshellback's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    OKC; by way of St. Mayberry, GA
    Posts
    4,750
    I'm of the 'emotional' standpoint WRT the anti's screaming for more gun control. No guns, no gun crimes, right? Now, WRT the goverment......they just don't want an armed population.......for the exact reason the Founding Fathers wrote it into our BOR's, to keep the Govt. on the up-n-up.
    Really, two seperate groups desiring two diffrent (but like) outcomes by using the same means....emotional appeals and tighter gun control laws.
    "Just getting a concealed carry permit means you haven't commited a crime yet. CCP holders commit crimes." Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, quoted on Fox & Friends, 8 Jul, 2008

    (Sometimes) "a fight avioded is a fight won." ... claude clay

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array digitalexplr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Jefferson City, MO
    Posts
    914
    Quote Originally Posted by rodc13 View Post
    You're right about how illogical they are.

    The one that always gets me is, "If we can save even one life, it's still worth it to ban/regulate/etc. . . . "

    I beg to differ. Saving "a" life may or may not be worth it, but it doesn't even take into account the likelihood that lives may be saved, and harm may be prevented by people having the ability to defend themselves.

    And they certainly have no evidence that less restrictive gun laws will cause more people to run amok and kill people right and left. In fact, there's not a single circumstance they can point to where that's been the case.
    The problem they have is that their efforts have never saved one life. Rather their idiocy has cost many lives of armed robbery victims, rape victims, home invasion victims, etc.

  9. #9
    Distinguished Member Array sniper58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,631
    Quote Originally Posted by rodc13 View Post
    You're right about how illogical they are.

    The one that always gets me is, "If we can save even one life, it's still worth it to ban/regulate/etc. . . . "

    I beg to differ. Saving "a" life may or may not be worth it, but it doesn't even take into account the likelihood that lives may be saved, and harm may be prevented by people having the ability to defend themselves.

    And they certainly have no evidence that less restrictive gun laws will cause more people to run amok and kill people right and left. In fact, there's not a single circumstance they can point to where that's been the case.
    +1! They have plenty of time-tested evidence that shatters their whole belief system. CCW people have instances of criminal behavior that is far below the national average. Areas with relaxed gun legislation has less instances of overall crime, gun crime specifically. They don't want to hear it as it destoys their persona. So all you can do is when you must, when you can and educate whenever possible. If all else fails, stand back and just watch
    Tim
    BE PREPARED - Noah didn't build the Ark when it was raining!
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    ________
    NRA Life Member

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by gwhall57 View Post
    The Antis preach a gospel of strict gun-control laws. They seem to cling to the notion that, with the passage of a few more highly restrictive gun laws that ban handguns, they will solve the problem of gun violence in our society today.
    There's a lot of money to be 'raked' off the top of donations, etc. when you can construct the illusion of a societal problem -- whether it be so-called 'gun violence' or a global warming crisis, it's easy to guess who's lining their own pockets.

    It's the Sheep who get raked and the People who pay the other price (bad laws and policies).

    If you're an 'anti' politician and your wallet is getting fat, what reason would you have to try to actually understand an issue? There's little money in the truth.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Array jframe38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    620
    gwhall57 - Check out my thread "Lunch with Liberals". These were guys I worked with for years and I couldn't believe how they think.
    I did remember another item at lunch. I was told that carrying made me feel "empowered". When said he was off base all I got was a smirk and a nod.
    This is typical of a Liberal ... telling ME how I feel when I carry. Their philosophy is that they know what is best for you or telling you how you should feel. Their reasoning is that they know what is better for you than you. Talk about arrogance!!!

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    Yet, once again, the labels do no good. "Liberals" and "conservatives" both are flawed characterizations of two groups who want control, and are willing to throw away fundamental rights to get it.

    "Liberals" all too often want to throw away the Second Amendment. "Conservatives" all too often want to throw away the First. I'm not willing to give away either. I don't think it's particularly useful to demonize groups based on a label or catchphrase.
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

  13. #13
    Ron
    Ron is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Linn, Oregon
    Posts
    1,629
    Quote Originally Posted by rodc13 View Post
    Yet, once again, the labels do no good. "Liberals" and "conservatives" both are flawed characterizations of two groups who want control, and are willing to throw away fundamental rights to get it.

    "Liberals" all too often want to throw away the Second Amendment. "Conservatives" all too often want to throw away the First. I'm not willing to give away either. I don't think it's particularly useful to demonize groups based on a label or catchphrase.
    Well said! Nor should we demonize based on any other group charactertization.
    "It does not do to leave a dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him."

    J. R. R. Tolkien

  14. #14
    Senior Member Array gwhall57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Midlothian, VA
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron View Post
    Well said! Nor should we demonize based on any other group charactertization.
    So all the posts on this board that use the label "Brady-Bunch" are also not valid and uncivilized as well? Or should I just edit my original post and change "liberal" to "Brady-Bunch", and all is forgiven?
    "Bad spellers of the world - untie!"

    DAV Life member, NRA Life member

    Springfield XD 9mm Sub-Compact
    Taurus PT111 Millennium Pro 9mm

  15. #15
    Distinguished Member Array coffeecup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cadiz,Ky
    Posts
    1,561
    Some may feel as if I am a bit paraniod, but I truly believe that gun control is just a small part of an overall conspiracy to de-Americanize this nation.

    WE, as citizens of the U.S. are forced to stand silently while our rights are slowly stripped away by forcing us to tolerate a flood of illegal imigrants,have our homes taken away to provide for more funding for cities,have our retirement money(Social Security) stolen from us and GIVEN to those that have never contributed a dime to the program,provide food, housing,etc. for those that are too lazy to work for a living,(I am all for helping those that are unable to care for themselves). The list goes on and on.

    Wake up guys and gals!!! The ruling in the Heller case is just a minor roadblock for those that would enslave you and your children.

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Another "spidey-sense" story: kinda long
    By Chaplain Scott in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: August 25th, 2013, 04:10 PM
  2. Has the term "reciprocity" lost its meaning?
    By brianko in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: June 25th, 2009, 09:34 PM
  3. I've lost trust in Speer .357 "short barrels"?
    By Marvin Knox in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 21st, 2008, 04:07 PM
  4. Common Sense
    By Bumper in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: February 1st, 2005, 02:32 PM