Does the gun stance define the person?

Glock 31

New member
This is kind of in response to the anti-celebrity thread that has been revisited recently.

When you hear that someone you know, or admire, from tv or in your personal life, doesn't support the second amendment the way it was intended to, or that they support gun control, does it change the way you look at that person as a person. Do you think less of them as a human being, or do you consider them to most likely just be uneducated. SHOULD your opinion change of a person because of their stance on pro-gun control, anti-gun control, or if they are of no opinion?

Remember that the anti's can consider us as uneducated as some of us think of them. Another way to put it is, putting aside the gun issue, what do you think feinstein is like as a person in general.

I brought this up because after reading the list I noticed quite a few people or groups I enjoyed that were on it. One in particular was Bon Jovi. I like some of their music, but I'm not sure I would buy one of their albums now if the money is going to go to anti-gun groups. Would you change your affiliation with a company, like Geico, because of their stance on the matter.

How much does a person's gun stance factor into their personalities?:cool:
 
I quit wearing Levi Strauss products when they jumped on the Rosie O'Donnell Million Mom March bandwagon. They had a dedicated website, and all kinds of money and effort going into spreading the anti-gun word. They've since taken the site down, (there may still be a stealth effort) but they are so openly involved with so many other causes I find ridiculous I still haven't thought them worth my money.
When I know of a company or organization that aligns themselves against the 2nd Amendment, I go out of my way, pay more, whatever it takes, to not only discontinue patronage but to make the reason known.
 
I don't discriminate against anti-gunners anymore than i do my muslim neighbors. Unless you take it to the extreme one character trait does not define a person. A Brady type, probably, but not your average Joe who knows little to nothing about guns/gun laws and by default is scared of potentially lethal technology.
 
Yes

I do indeed think less of someone who not only advocates his own helplessness, but also pursues to reduce me to a like state. It is a weakness of character that is indicitive of one's entire worldview--if it is present, you can bet there are more serious psychological problems at its root. And it is a weakness of character that, like most such weaknessness, will cause the subjugation of the individual to collectivism if left unchallenged.
 
Elitist or just uninformed?

Interesting question. It appears to me that both answers are applicable, depending on the person. Some "educated" people are not intellectually honest. I have known people who dislike (even hate) guns, because of a personal expierence. One fellow hated guns, because his father was murdered (with a shotgun). To me this is not intellectually honest. To him, his father was murdered BY a shotgun. See the difference?

I have changed my opinion of people and groups, based on their stance on firearms, and on other issues. I liked the music group "Boston", until I read the fine print in one of their albums, and discovered that not only were they vegetarians, but that they felt everyone else should be as well. At that point I stopped buying their music. I still like to listen to it, but I won't give them any more of my money.

It is nearly impossible not to have some of your money wind up in the hands of those who's view on civil rights is not the same as our own. But I try not to give them any more money than I can help.

Time magazine, who became Time/Life, who became Time/Warner, who became I'm not even sure now, does not get any of more of my money than I can help. But they do get some. Back in (I believe) the early 80s, Time actually published an editorial stating that, while journalists should remain neutral, they believed the gun issue was too important for them not to take a side. The side they chose to take was opposite mine. I respect them for the honesty of actually printing (ONCE), the fact that they had an agenda, but beyond that I oppose their views. Many times I have recieved solicitations for books/videos that would otherwise appealing to me, but I would not buy. When they would call me on the phone, I would talk to them, and after the sales pitch, I would tell them that I would LOVE to buy their book/videos, but would not, SOLELY because of their parent company's stand against personal firearms ownership. They were always polite, and thanked me for my time.

I do enjoy some movies, and some TV, and I will not deprive myself, or my family from otherwise enjoyable entertainment just because Time/Warner is involved. I don't think this makes me a hypocrite, just less than fanatically commited to boycotting ALL their products. Not seeing a movie (that you want to see) because of their politics doesn't send them any message.

If I hear of a "gun friendly" business, they get my business, even if I have to spend a little more.

As far as actors/actresses, I can enjoy their work without putting up with their personal politics, unless they bring it into their work (and many often do).

For those individuals who "don't know", or support anti-gun groups because "everyone else is doing it", I can cut them a little (a little!) slack, because I realize that their reasoning has not been influenced by the harsh realities of the real world. Their money, prestige, and influence has protected them from learning the hard lessons, in a personal way. Quite often, when reality does intrude into their protected lives, they become active supporters of gun rights. Nothing makes a pro gun supporter like a liberal who has been mugged.:D

Now, the others, are elitists. They are the ones who, for whatever reason (money, education, popularity, etc) believe that they have the right to tell the rest of us how to live. That they are better than we are, and so their beliefs are automatically correct, and superior to ours. These are the people who think that it is ok for them to have a gun, but not the rest of us. Or, more often, since they can afford to hire men with guns for their protection, that we don't need guns for ours. They get special attention from the police, but believe they don't, that everyone gets treated the same, so we don't need guns. People like this, who keep their opinions private, I have no problem with. But when they engage in public discourse, that changes.

I do form, and change opinions about people based on their actions on the gun issue. I use this as a gauge of their overall honesty. The misled, and the misinformed I can forgive, once they see the truth. If they refuse to see the truth when it stares them in the face, then my opinion becomes pretty fixed.

People like Feinstein, Schumer, Biden, and others who have ACTIVELY worked for decades to take guns away from law abiding citizens, well, I have a pretty low opinion of them. They are trecherous, lying, untrustworthy individuals who have shown their true elitist ambitions repeatedly over the years. Diane Feinstein ("if I could have gotten 51 votes, turn 'em all in Mr and Mrs America") turned in her gun (registered) when she was pushing gun control as mayor of San Francisco. Later, it was found that she had TWO registered guns, and only turned in ONE. She doesn't want us to have them, but she KEPT hers. And she has paid security people as well.

People like this are BIGOTS. They are bigoted against anyone who is not of their own exalted status (or above). The rest of us are inferior, and should be properly subserviant, and subordinate. To these people, the very idea of "the great unwashed" making their own decisions about anything, let alone something as important as life and death, is rediculous. The are better, they know better, and we should just leave it all up to them. For our safety. For the Children....

Make your own decisions, I will make mine. Form your own opinions, I will form mine, when you come down to it, until they take our lives, forming our own opinions is the only freedom we have that they can't take away.
 
I do indeed think less of someone who not only advocates his own helplessness, but also pursues to reduce me to a like state. It is a weakness of character that is indicitive of one's entire worldview--if it is present, you can bet there are more serious psychological problems at its root. And it is a weakness of character that, like most such weaknessness, will cause the subjugation of the individual to collectivism if left unchallenged.

The best post I've read in a long while. This point is especially meaningful to me because I know people EXACTLY like this.

Flawed roots = flawed fruit. You are right, Phetro.
 
if they're anti-gun

Since guns are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to save more lives/mayhem than they create (in the USA at least), then it's a fairly safe bet that they're EITHER:

1. Ignorant/Uneducated on social, political, & historical issues, OR

2. They are just stupid/dumb/slow/illogical...I mean, 'challenged', OR

3. They are a politician who simply uses disarmament as an emotional issue to aggrandize their power, even though they are smart and know the truth.

People in cat 3 are worthy of contempt (Feinstein) and campaigning against. People in cat 1 need to be educated (so join the NRA and spread the message). People in cat 2 are hopeless, so they just need constant debunking in order to make them look like the idiots they are.

And yes, absolutely boycott all things/companies/celebrities that are demonstrably or outspoken as anti-gun. The celebrity who is most putrid in my view would be one George Clooney, who, when asked what he thought about Chuck Heston coming down with a debilitating disease said something to the effect that "I don't care - he deserves anything he gets, as president of the NRA". That should instantly clue people in on the true character of this anti-freedom celeb - rejoicing in evil devastating illnesses on those whom he opposes politically.
 
It's only natural to feel more warmly towards those who share my views... So yes, a person's stance on firearms does have a note-worthy effect on my opinion of them.

And of course, there are some folks who don't want guns, but aren't antis. The "you can own all you want, just don't give me any" folks. Well, I think they're missing out, but as long as they don't support disarming everyone, then I won't disrespect them a bit.

Now... If someone is openly against my personal right to firearms (be it MY right, or just the right of "people" -- afterall, "people shoot eachother", etc) then they definately shed my respect...

Wolfe.
 
You know after re-reading through the ILA list, in greater detail, I am confronted with a vexing fact. Unless you are lucky enough to remain in perfect physical, emotional, and mental health your whole life. Chances are, if you require the services of an ambulance, you will be riding in one that belongs to a company on this list. You will be taken to a hospital, well involved with organizations on this list. And seen and treated by physicians and staff, who belong to organizations on this list.

Now this seems to be a little understandable on their part, since they see the effects of gun violence on a day to day basis. But it still creates a conflicting issue. Are we willing to take the risks of putting our 2nd Amendment priorities and principals before medical care? Assuming we have the concious choice depending on any given situation.

I'm reminded of an ER episode in which the character Doctor Green is assaulted in the restroom. This leads him to acquire a handgun, which in turn gets his butt out of another possible assault on the subway. He then apparently "freaks out" about having used it to ward off his attackers, runs to a nearby bridge, and throws it into the water. Now while the act of possibly using a handgun conflicts with the character's hypocratic oath as a physician is understandable, it doesn't change the fact that if not for the handgun, he probably would have been assaulted a second time.

Another thing I noticed is some of the organizations I overlooked the first few times I skimmed the list;

National Association of Police Organizations,

Is that based solely on trying to protect the safety of officers?

National Association of Public Hospitals,

National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA,

This one concerns me as a Christian. Now they seem to be bringing religion into it. I also think the bible allowed for self defense though I'm not sure which passage.

War and Peace Foundation,

I didn't know they made foundations based on books.

Billy Crystal- Actor,

I was under the impression he was a practiced cowboy. A figure that is closely tied to guns.

Blue Cross Blue Shield - Kansas City
John P. Mascotte, President
P.O. Box 419169
Kansas City, MO 64141
(816) 395-2222
Healthcare Company,

This could surprise and concern many an elderly gun lover.

Crown Central Petroleum Corp.
Henry A. Rosenberg, Jr.
One North Central Street Box 1168
Baltimore, MD 21203
(301) 539-7400
Refiners and marketers of petroleum products, convenience stores,

Just who do you buy your gas from? They're not just screwing us at the pumps anymore.

Hallmark Cards
Irvine O. Hockaday, President & CEO
P.O. Box 418307
Kansas City, MO 64141
(816) 274-5111
www.hallmark.com
Greeting Card Company,

Better start making your own, "Sorry I shot your cat" cards.

Sara Lee Corporation
Sara Lee Foundation
Three First National Plaza
Chicago, IL 60602-4260
Phone: 312-726-2600
www.saralee.com
Fax: 312-726-3712,

Another reason to start dieting.

Kansas City Chiefs
Lamar Hunt, Owner
One Arrowhead Drive
Kansas City, MO 64129
(816) 924-9300
www.kcchiefs.com
Pro Football Team,

They suck anyway.

St. Louis Rams
Georgia Frontiere , Owner
One Rams Way
Earth City, MO 63045
(314) 982-7267
www.stlouisrams.com
Pro Football Team,

Damn!

Rolling Stone Magazine
Jann Wenner, Chrm. & CEO
745 5th, Avenue
New York, NY 10151
(212) 758-3800,

Gee, big surprise.

And so on and so forth. So many people and companies who's actions people take for granted simply to benefit from their products and services.

I know there is a list of pro-gun celebs, albeit a very short one. How about the one for companies. It seems daunting in our task to bring common sense back to the U.S. when so many are alligned against us.:cool:
 
I don't equate the stance with the person. I can find contention on some issue with nearly everybody I meet yet still genuinely enjoy their company.
The ones I don't like are the ones who knowingly promote falsehoods in order to promote a cause they know to be counterproductive in exchange for personal gain. Read: way too many politicians (on both sides)
 
Back
Top