What makes an anti an anti ?

[bruno2]

This has crossed my mind a few times . Rather we are talking about politicians, employers, neighbors or even your best friend . I know there are several reasons and some have multiple reasons. Is it the occurance of a traumatic event in somebodies life (like a friend or loved one being murdered by a criminal)? Does money motivate the anti - politicians ?

I have had things in my life happen traumatic events and other such happenings . These have never caused me to become anti anything . I have been bitten by pitbulls and a few other traumatic events caused by the same breed . None of these events have turned me against the breed . They are not my breed of choice , but , they dont bother me to be around them . I have friends with pits and I play rough with them and pet them . I am not even leary of them . I just dont see the logic in hating them .

I think that some of the anti politicians are just controlling and want to meddle in peoples lives . A voting base could probably motivate some . I could see somebody being elected to the house with no anti feelings and find that his constituates do favor more gun control . Then trying to please them voting in favor of anti legislation . The thought that his paycheck might disappear if he doesnt comply rather its his beleif or not .

[swgunner]

My dad thinks guns make people do bad things, but cannot explain why other people in the Army don't go crazy with an M16, or why my guns can just in the rack without going on a rampage. It makes no sense to me at all.

[ShadoWalker]

Majority of people are completely unwilling to admit evil exists in humans. Since they consider themselves to be fundamentally good they want to believe everyone else is too. Scary thing is a good number of gun owners fall into this group and are completely unprepared to face evil.

A lot of the times people that wouldn't trust themselves with a firearm don't believe anyone else can be trusted either. After all if no one else can be trusted then something isn't wrong with them .

Sometimes it's a traumatic event, sometimes they think everyone should just get along. That argument makes sense somewhat but you can only rationalize with the rational.

Others find it uncomfortable that people have the ability to resist authority if it becomes necessary.

[bruno2]

A really good friend of mine had a bad motorcycle wreck and cut off his right arm . When he was at the ER he was rambling and tryingto make small talk with the doctor. The doctor seemed somewhat motorcycle savy . My friend asked "Do you ride" ? The Dr replied "hell no I work here" referring to all of the bad accidents he has witnessed in his career .

I can somewhat rationalize with how he feels . OTOH not all motorcycles are involved in accidents . It is of course his perogative to ride or not . My now one armed friend still wants to ride . He wishes that could afford a custom bike for a handicapped guy ( I dont know if thats legal or not) . Even after an accident that bad he doesnt hate the machine for what happened . Keep in mind this guy was a very very talented trim carpenter .

[azmjs]

I suspect that it's probably different for different people.

Some take a moral high road, in their own minds, by declaring that gun violence must be stopped by getting rid of guns.

Some are afraid of guns.

Some are afraid of gun nuts.

Some see it as a political issue, a way to spite the other team.

Some hate violence, and stand on their principles.

I doubt any list would be exclusive.

[Loosedhorse]

Perhaps I should approach the question from the back:

I am not an anti (though opinions vary!). I believe that I am good; I believe most people are good, and would choose to help someone rather than harm him whenever possible.

Perhaps antis believe something else; perhaps they believe the opposite?

[oneshooter]

I believe that a lot are anti due to simple ignorence. What they don't know about they fear, because of this fear they want to do away with what they are scared of.

Just my $.02 worth.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Mr White]

The son of a guy who works in my department was killed at Virginia Tech. I came to that dept about a year after the tragedy and when I finally met him, I offered my condolences and he told me about his ordeals from the shooting to the present. At one point he mentioned that he didn't blame the guns but the person, but then he said that he didn't think people should be able to own semiauto guns because they were just made to kill people.

Normally, had this been just your standard garden variety anti, I'd have been all over him for that statement. Considering the circumstances, I said nothing and have not brought up the subject since, nor will I.

I guess in certain cases, people have legitimate reasons for feeling the way they do, and all you can do is respect those feelings out of respect for the person.

[bruno2]

I know a girl and she is extremely liberal . She sees guns as a stupid macho thing . She has never been harmed by a gun or lost somebody dear to a shooting . She almost takes a since guys like them so much I hate them attitude . Which is just rediculous and ludicrous . I dont like 4x4 trucks jacked up obnoxously high , but I dont think they should all just be banned . I just cant see how anybody could be so blindly against something .

You cant rationalize with the irrational .

[DenaliPark]

Whenever I hear this question(and it's asked often) I am reminded of an intense cinematic moment in the motion picture "The Exorcist."
In one particular scene, as the two Jesuits ascend the stairs to combat the demon the younger Jesuit(a psychiatrist) attempts to brief the much older, wiser Jesuit on the multitude of personalities that he's documented in the poor afflicted girl.
The older man turns to him and solemnly informs the younger fellow that there is only one!
Thus it is with the antis, many, many voices, but only one motivation, FEAR...

[ozarkhillbilly]

It’s a control issue, many people are ignorant, but have inflated sense of self importance, so they feel that they need to control what others do. There are a few who just do not understand and they can usually be reasoned with.

But for the most part they are just self centered; narrow minded hypocrites who preach tolerance but really just want total obedience to their views.

[bruno2]

Quote
But fIt’s a control issue, many people are ignorant, but have inflated sense of self importance, so they feel that they need to control what others do. For the most part they are just self centered; narrow minded hypocrites who preach tolerance but really just want total obedience to their views.

This type of individual really troubles me . I used to work for a guy that would always try to tell everybody how to vote in an election . I would never dream of trying to tell my employees how to vote . I did agree with him on a few candidates , but , I would never aknowledge what he was saying by agreeing or disagreeing with him . He just wanted to be controlling and influential . Total obedience to his views .

[Picard]

In my opinion, the majority of people that do not like the civilian ownership of firearms think that way because of constant repetition, showing firearms as being evil. They see it on the news almost daily, they see it in movies, they see it on TV shows, it's everywhere.

This repetition skips all logical areas of the mind and goes straight to the emotional, such that whenever anyone thinks of a gun, they remember all that they've seen and heard, and assume that it must be true, or else it wouldn't be repeated so often.

[csmkersh]

Both Senator Schumer and Feinstein have CCW licenses yet they are both dedicated anti-RKBA advocates.

[ozarkhillbilly]

I guess in certain cases, people have legitimate reasons for feeling the way they do, and all you can do is respect those feelings out of respect for the person.

Mr White While I agree with not to argue with this person as it would not have done any good. I do not respect his feelings or feel that they are in anyway legitimate. I know people who have been murdered with guns, I know people who have committed suicide with guns and I know people who have used guns for self defense. I would not trade all of the dead for one of the living. It is evil for someone to want to deny the right of self defense just because of crazy ideas that are not based upon facts but rather feelings.

[bruno2]

Quote
"Both Senator Schumer and Feinstein have CCW licenses yet they are both dedicated anti-RKBA advocates. "

Hypocrite antis They are selling their personal beleifs out for money . Just like Reba McIntyre .

They could be the fearful ones that fear the overthrow .

[sanglant]

oh not at all, schumer etc. believe in the right of the affluent. if you make less than 500k a year, you don't count.

[Samurai Penguin]

Maybe this can provide an explanation.

[catspa]

Interesting article, SP.

Parker

[Ltp0wer]

I think it's because a lot of people seem to think that just because they don't use specific rights, that they don't care if they get taken away. I remember when the whole anti-smoking campaign was going on in my state, people who didn't smoke didn't care if public smoking would be outlawed. I also have friends who aren't homosexual, and they don't really care if homosexual marriage is allowed. Even though I am a heterosexual non-smoker, I still support public smoking AND gay marriage.

It reminds me of one of my favorite poems:

Originally Posted by First They Came

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[Standing Wolf]

Definitely worth reading, Samurai Penguin. Thanks, eh?

My father told me when I was a child, "We have laws because people are basically evil."

I was in my forties before I realized the vast majority of people are mostly honest and fair and trustworthy about most things most of the time. Yes, there are evil people. I've met some. I can assure you they gladly do as much damage as they can get away with. They're a small minority, but they are, indeed, harmful.

I've since embraced an attitude of hoping for the best and preparing for the worst. That means I trust people unless they demonstrate they're untrustworthy. Very few people let me down, and just to ice the cake, people see me today as a much more positive man than they saw years ago.

[Joist]

A really good friend of mine had a bad motorcycle wreck and cut off his right arm . When he was at the ER he was rambling and tryingto make small talk with the doctor. The doctor seemed somewhat motorcycle savy . My friend asked "Do you ride" ? The Dr replied "hell no I work here" referring to all of the bad accidents he has witnessed in his career .

I can somewhat rationalize with how he feels . OTOH not all motorcycles are involved in accidents . It is of course his perogative to ride or not . My now one armed friend still wants to ride . He wishes that could afford a custom bike for a handicapped guy ( I dont know if thats legal or not) . Even after an accident that bad he doesnt hate the machine for what happened . Keep in mind this guy was a very very talented trim carpenter .

Bruno2, It doesn't sound as if the doctor was 'anti-motorcycle;' it's more as if he had made his own decision NOT to ride informed by his ER experiences. I'm in a similar position regarding risk-taking.

[Aguila Blanca]

What makes an anti an anti?

In a word -- brainwashing.

Example -- I am currently using the services of a young, female attorney in regard to a civil matter. Somehow, during a meeting last week, discussion digressed into gun laws, Obama, and my concerns about his socialist agenda to disarm the population in contravention of the 2nd Amendment.

I guess I was lulled into complacency by the fact I was talking to an attorney. I'm using another (male) attorney in an unrelated (also civil) matter, and that attorney was an Army officer during the Vietnam dustup and is a strong believer in the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. The female attorney is a generation and a half younger than the Army vet, and she attended a nearby, liberal law school. As the discussion progressed, it became obvious that she had been completely brainwashed.

• She didn't know about Heller
• She didn't think the 2nd Amendment covered anything except muskets. She tried the "But they didn't have assault weapons then" argument, and was blissfully unaware that one of the Founders wrote that the 2A includes "All the terrible implements of war."
• She wasn't aware that the National Guard is not the militia referred to in the 2A
• She wasn't aware of jury nullification
• She wasn't even aware that this state issues concealed carry licenses

Scary. We had to agree to disagree and get back to business. I was, in a word, shocked. (She probably was, too.) It became apparent that her classes in constutional law either didn't address the 2nd Amendment at all or, more likely, totally misrepresented it from a leftist perspective.

[bruno2]

Great article SP . That aspect of human nature is something that I question all of the time.That aspect is more than likely what the basis of this thread was generated over . A little thought goes a long ways . There are so many felonius crimes out there for people to commit that IMHO shouldnt be classified as a felony or be ilegal at that . Some laws are nothing more than an avenue to generate revenue for Cities , States, or the Feral Gov. Citizens are milked and bled routinely of their hard earned money or God given rights .

[KD5NRH]

Is it the occurance of a traumatic event in somebodies life (like a friend or loved one being murdered by a criminal)?

There has to be more to it than that: I've been through it, and it just makes me wish my father had had a gun that day.

I thought I had posted this back when I sent it off as a letter to an anti-gun editor, but apparently I only posted about it. Here's the full letter I wrote:

In your editorial, you state: "It is time for people to see the other side of this issue. Go and speak with someone who lost a loved one due to a senseless act of violence with a gun. Then come and preach about rights."

I would invite you to do exactly that; shortly before my eleventh birthday, my father was killed in a senseless act of violence with a gun, and yet I am firmly on the side of this issue that you so readily dismiss.

I do not blame the gun for my father's death, nor any fabled "gun culture," nor do I know or even care if the gun was stolen. The murderer acted entirely of his own volition, without influence from any inanimate object. If he stole the gun, I seriously doubt it was laying on someone's front porch where he wouldn't have to be troubled with breaking into their house.

I am a firearm collector, a hunter who uses both handguns and semiautomatic rifles in the field, and I don't consider it to be the responsibility of any person when any property stolen from their locked homes is used in a crime. Let me ask you this: do you keep your kitchen knives locked in a safe, with special covers locked onto the blades when not actually in use? Do you then feel that you should be held responsible for the actions of anyone who breaks in to your locked home and uses one of those deadly weapons in a crime, since you only put one layer of protection (the locked front door) on them?

You speak of how easy it is to purchase a gun, but I would have to ask why you believe that it should be any more difficult for a law-abiding citizen to purchase anything. You cannot make it harder for criminals to purchase by any legal action, since they already do not purchase firearms through legal channels.

Even if you banned guns outright, you would only succeed in creating a much larger black market, which would attract every journeyman machinist capable of replicating 19th century designs. Illiterate blacksmiths in third-world countries turn out fully functional automatic rifles from truck parts using hand tools even now; given the proliferation of methamphetamine labs here in the U.S., and the relative simplicity of the design of many firearms, can you honestly contend that there wouldn't be at several clandestine arms factories in every city, producing automatic rifles that rival, if not surpass the effectiveness of the M-16A3? Of course, such a black market, by its nature and definition, can only benefit criminals. Law-abiding citizens would be left as helpless victims, with no chance of defending themselves.

You claim that hunters do not need semiautomatic weapons, as though no hunter had ever been forced to fire multiple shots in quick succession at a charging animal. I would challenge you to hit a charging feral hog at all with only a single shot, much less place that shot in a vital area not protected by the thick brow plate. Additionally, quick follow-on shots are sometimes necessary to finish a mortally wounded animal. I for one would much prefer that the finishing shot come as quickly as possible, rather than after the hunter has taken the time to load another round.

Most importantly, however, the framers of the Constitution, and the Congress in 1791 were well aware of multiple-shot firearms, and even multiple-shot handguns when the Second Amendment was presented. If they had intended to recognize only a right to keep and bear certain arms, they would most certainly have specified that.