Why they hate gun owners.

L

Lavan

New member
I was musing yesterday about the motivation for being anti-gun when the pro-gun people would be the ones who would meet an unexpected threat with an armed response which would benefit the whole damn country.

Suddenly, it came to me. That IS why they don't like us.

Ain't the truth ugly?
 
I respectfully disagree. I beleive most antis to be well intended, misguided people, who dwell in what I like to term "intellectual eutopia," seperated from reality.
 
I also disagree. They have a warped sense of what the real world is like ...

... If someone breaks in to your home, call 911 and they'll be there before you can even hang up the phone (after all that's what happens on TV) ...

... Stay out of poorly lighted areas at night and nobody will bother you ...

... If confronted, scream and they will run away ...

... etc. For all of these "reasons" and others, nobody needs to own a gun for self defense.
 
You folks DO realize that your explanations are NOT mutually exclusive, right?

All of you are right.

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!

TFL End of Summer Meet, August 12th & 13th, 2000
 
Over here in Japan no one is more despised than someone who resists arbitrary authority, whether in word or deed. Non-threatening behavior consists essentially of drawing a dotted line on your neck and giving your superior a razor, at the same time saying, "cut here, please."
Passive resignation is a virtue.

Over here in Japan I'm convinced that we are hated because we don't like being someone else's lunch, and more importantly, we refuse to cook ourselves, first.

It's a classic paranoid reversal pattern: crazy governments, like crazy people, cause harm, and when the person or persons harmed defend themselves or act to neutralize the threat, self defense is considered a threat to the crazy person, and cited as justification for more malicious behavior.

I have actually had a boss tell me that I was troublesome because, as she put it, I refused to be controlled (!), to which I growled, "You're damned right, lady! Who the hell do you think you are, anyway!?" This elicited a few gasps. She asked me to quit, and I asked her if she was crazy, and insisted that she'd have to fire me.

To make a long story short, my contract was renewed with a raise the next year.

Whatever is strong is the good over here, and in many, many other places.

That's one reason why RKBA is so very important and one of the reasons the USA is still "the last, best hope of mankind."


[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited June 05, 2000).]
 
I think the issue of guns/gun control boils down to power. Who has it, who doesn’t and who is not comfortable with a disparity of power.

Many antigun folks I know (including many who are good friends) are just not comfortable with the fact that I own firearms and they don't. Antigun folks are OK with a judicious/lawful authority figure having guns, e.g. a police officer, as they see a police officer as an ally and defender of their rights. So, I guess they are not really antigun are they? No, they are not “antigun”, they are “antipower”. The thought of their neighbor or some unknown stranger having a gun (power) can really make them uncomfortable. My legal and legitimate ownership of firearms for self defense and preservation of liberty can be seen as a threatening imbalance of power by those who choose not to arm themselves.

Reacting to this situation, gun control proponents seek to impose their will on gun owners, in effect attempting to restore the balance of power, by restricting or limiting access to the ultimate power possessed by the common American- the firearm. By restricting my access to firearms, they seek to decrease my power and return the preponderance of power to the government and its agencies (the police), whom they see as a controllable entity (in theory at least). When you think of the debate in terms of the “balance of power” dynamic, all of the hysteria (Do it for the children, if it saves one life, etc…..) drops away. The founding fathers understood that power comes from the barrel of a gun. They had just used that power to destroy the legitimate government of the 13 colonies and establish a new country. Using little more than small arms, they had crushed one of the most powerful governments the world had yet seen. To safeguard future Americans, they heartily endorsed private firearms ownership, in effect dispersing power amongst the common people. To start down the road towards gun control is to undo the careful dispersal of power that was engineered by the founders.

Criminal or accidental misuse of power happens every day, be it the power of a moving car with a drunk behind the wheel, a doctor making a medical mistake or some deranged kid taking a gun to school. Of far greater benefit, it is the widespread dissemination of power in America that makes it a vital nation. Whether we talk about the power of the free press, the power of the ballot box, the power of knowledge, or the power of the firearm, the foundation of America is the dispersal of power amongst common people.

Know this: Firearms are power. They are the ultimate power in our world because they are common (widely dispersed), easy to use and incredibly capable of ending human life. I WILL have that power in my possession and I will NEVER abdicate it as long as another person or any government still has it. I understand the awesome responsibility that accompanies power. It was drilled into my head by my parents. I would no more use a firearm in an illegal manner than I would drink and drive.

I trust the driver of an oncoming car to operate responsibly, just as they expect me to do the same. Until they abuse that power, they should have the ability to own and operate a car. I am willing to risk my life on the highway so that they can exercise the power of “freedom of movement” that comes along with an automobile. Any one with a shred of mathematical skill can tell you that the odds of you being shot are ridiculously small. If you are really paranoid about some stranger having power over you, then take away their driver’s license. Statistics say you’ll save more lives that way than any other.

I store my loaded pistol in a touch-keyed box. When I am at home, the box is unlocked and my car/house keys are on top of it. I never leave my house without locking up, so storing the keys on top of the box makes sure I don’t leave the house without securing my pistol (or taking it with me.). I have no children in my house. I have a $900 gun safe that stores the loaded 12-gauge pump shotgun that serves as my second line of home defense. I have no need for a trigger lock mandate nor any risky gun registration schemes.

I reject “common sense gun laws” because they make no sense. “Gun control” always follows three basic steps: 1)Decrease the rate of power dispersal by restricting sales/access to new guns and making gun ownership a hassle. 2)Identify/Isolate the power by banning the transfer of guns and registering gun owners. 3)Take back the power by confiscating privately owned guns. Right now we are still at step one in the U.S.. Gun control serves only to decrease the power in the hands of common Americans and tilt the balance of power back towards those in control of our government. Gun owners are aware of the power of gun ownership and this is why they resist any more gun control. They see gun control as the power grab that it really is. The residents of Lexington and Concord saw it in 1775 and responded properly. I only hope I can honor their memory if history repeats itself in my lifetime.


------------------
TRAVELLER, SHOULD YOUR ROAD LEAD YOU TO SPARTA, TELL THEM THAT YOU SAW US LYING HERE AS THE LAWS WILLED IT.

-Inscription on a Greek monument to Leonidas

[This message has been edited by Keystone (edited June 05, 2000).]
 
The antis are stupid, ignorant and ill-informed. I always say to them:

Do you trust the government?

yes

Would you feel safe in a goverment building?

yes

The you wouldn't mind being locked in a state prison for a few hours would you?

well....um.....no

But its run by the government, they know how to manage things don't you agree?

------------------
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."

--Ayn Rand, in "The Nature of Government"
 
IMHO, antis fall into one or more easily recognizable catagories.

1) "Guns make Murderers out of Perfectly Ordinary People". How many antis have posted on boards stating that not having a gun prevented them from killing someone in a fit of rage? They don't trust themselves, and by extenstion, don't think anyone else is trustworthy.

2) "I don't know and I don't WANT to know". These folks don't know an M1 rifle from an M1 Abrams. They may also believe that this ignorance advances them to a higher moral plane than us knuckle-draggers. They don't know the functional differences between semi-auto and full-auto. They may actually believe that guns can and do "go off" on their own.

3) "Mommy knows Best". These people believe that Society exists as a super-ordinate entity to the individual, and that they are the arbiters of what is best for Society. These folks can be recognized by buzz-phrases like "For the Children" and "If it only saves one life". In this camp, you'll find the true bleeding-heart liberal. No ill is unsuited to a government intervention. These folks are convinced that if we children have all our dangerous toys taken away, then we'll all be upright, productive members of their Utopia. At the apex of this crowd is a cadre of dedicated Statists, who view those of us living in "Fly-over country" as a bunch of illiterate, butt-scratching rednecks. It absolutely infuriates them that we cannot be made to see what is so OBVIOUSLY in our self-interest. To them, anything that focuses power or money (no difference, really) in a central authority THAT THEY CONTROL is an end worth of any means.

Whew. Somebody help me down from the soapbox.
 
Good posts and I agree with all of them.

Personally, I figure that anti-gunners hate pro-gunners mostly because the latter have independent minds and possess the will and means to resist control.
 
Many of the arguments are analyses by the choir and don't really understand the issue.
They are projections of your beliefs on the antis. They miss some basic points.

You forget a basic factor. Firearms are identified as a basic tribal icon of conservative, typically white males.

The antis are usually from a political party
(although there are certainly antigun yuppie GOP members) with a different core structure.

Thus as part of the war on your political foe you attack his icon. You might not even care that much about the issue but by weakening the ability to possess the icon you weaken your enemy. It's like stealing the symbolic mascot.

Another reason is that gun owners are perceived by some as holding racist or other unpleasant beliefs. Being someone who is not really sure of the issues, you would make a spread of activation. Since racism is bad and you see gun activity in that context then gun
ownership is bad.

Next, a fair amount of antis come from cultural backgrounds where they were never taught or observed than guns can be used safely, recreational or for self-defense.
The only people they see with guns are
police.

Police are unpleasant. Their job is to use force. They have guns and sometimes misuse them.

Criminals also have guns. That's why police need them.

Thus the gun is an instrument that brings no good to their environment and should be banned. Perhaps you should argue that such folks should read the Founding Fathers but that isn't happening in reality.

I talk to poor folks in neighborhoods who talk about seeing their kids kill each other and the police kill their kids. They don't do IPSC or skeet. It is natural for them to say that this instrumentality should be banned. That's why you see most urban areas being antigun.

Another reason is the rhetoric of revolution. Many RKBA arguments are about how we need guns to overthrow the government if the government turns bad. Many rather wacky theories and conspiracies may be proposed.

If you look at the majority of gun owners, they don't buy that argument. Internet folks may but that's a strange group. So if gun owners don't buy that - certainly non-gun owners hear the conspiracists and argue that gun ownership is not a good thing. We certainly don't want a revolution by these folk.

To summarize, most of the reasons posted may have some truth but you are really not putting yourself in the mind of your foe.
You are projecting ideas on them that don't explain most of the variance.

Classic example is Chuck's Cold Dead Hands Musket Speech. We love it. An nondecided folk might say - Hmm - not for me.

Flames appreciate and warmly accepted.
But think about.
 
Keystone, Hutch and Glenn,

I think your combined sharp wisdom has cut into the very essence of the greatest majority of anti-gunners and their mentality. People like you guys make The Firing Line the high-quality venue that it is. Bravo indeed.

------------------
Private gun ownership is the capital sin in the left's godless religion. Crime is merely a venial mistake.

Check out these gals: www.sas-aim.org

[This message has been edited by 416Rigby (edited June 06, 2000).]
 
Keystone, well said! That is such an excellent piece of writing I wonder if you would consider submiting it to the TFL library. Or since you do not have a home page listed may I post it on my homepage and list you as the author?

------------------
A Life Well Lived Is The Best Revenge!
 
I have a simple thought on this...

The ONLY reason they are affraid of armed citizens is because "WE ARE THE PEOPLE". Take away our guns and we are just merely "Subjects".

Enough said.

------------------
-AoW[t]-Dead [Black Ops]
 
Glenn-- interesting post. Let me respond to your points.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer:
Many of the arguments are analyses by the choir and don't really understand the issue.
They are projections of your beliefs on the antis. They miss some basic points.

You forget a basic factor. Firearms are identified as a basic tribal icon of conservative, typically white males. The antis are usually from a political party (although there are certainly antigun yuppie GOP members) with a different core structure.

Thus as part of the war on your political foe you attack his icon. You might not even care that much about the issue but by weakening the ability to possess the icon you weaken your enemy. It's like stealing the symbolic mascot.
[/quote]

I must flatly disagree with you. Firearms are waaayyyyy beyond a symbolic mascot. Firearms are the ultimate reality. They are the power of life and death. Power flows from the barrel of a gun, not symbolism. Firearms are lethal weapons that can cause great destruction if the user so intends. They make any person capable of imposing the ultimate revenge upon their antagonist. In my earlier post, I advanced the theory that firearms are attacked by the anti's not because they are an icon or symbol of power, but because firearms ARE power. Their attacks are not symbolic, they are in earnest.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

Another reason is that gun owners are perceived by some as holding racist or other unpleasant beliefs. Being someone who is not really sure of the issues, you would make a spread of activation. Since racism is bad and you see gun activity in that context then gun ownership is bad.
[/quote]

Well, I suppose this idea holds true in some parts of the country, but I've always read that lynching was the preferred method of displaying the violent side of racism. I think it is a safe bet to say that you could peruse the entire HCI website and not find a single plea for gun control based on racism. Racism is directed at minorities, and minorities are not empowered in this country. Therefore, they will not succeed in disarming the law abiding citizens of this country.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
I talk to poor folks in neighborhoods who talk about seeing their kids kill each other and the police kill their kids. They don't do IPSC or skeet. It is natural for them to say that this instrumentality should be banned. That's why you see most urban areas being antigun.
[/quote]

Well, as I said, I think these same poor people lack any form of power in our society. They are frequently undereducated, under/unemployed and rarely vote. In the big scheme of things, I think it is safe to say they are on the sidelines of this country and its power structure. Being powerless and thus largely ignorant of power, they are no threat to my ownership of guns, just as I am no threat to them. I've always said that the urban ghettos of this country aren't dangerous because of all the white male Republicans running around in them with guns. The urban poor are antigun because they cannot yet control themselves and their own children. The source of antigun power grabs will not be the urban poor. It takes power to seize power, and they haven't got any.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Another reason is the rhetoric of revolution. Many RKBA arguments are about how we need guns to overthrow the government if the government turns bad.......If you look at the majority of gun owners, they don't buy that argument. Internet folks may but that's a strange group. So if gun owners don't buy that - certainly non-gun owners hear the conspiracists and argue that gun ownership is not a good thing. We certainly don't want a revolution by these folk.
[/quote]

Who says we won't someday want a revolution by conspiriacists? Weren't George Washington and Thomas Jefferson conspirators in the overthrow a theoretically legitimate government? In his lifetime, Washington went from being an officer in the British army, to commanding a force of treasonous conspirators intent on butchering that same British army. The George Washington of the 1750's would have thought the George Washington of 1776 a traitorous, conspiriator nut case. The fact is, times change and people change. Only power stays the same. Washington actively supported the monarchy of England, until such time as its demands on him became intolerable. At that time he stood in the gap, with thousands of armed, like-minded co-conspirators, and seized power. He was able to seize all the power from the Brits because he had that small seed of power already at his disposal- the armed subject-turned-citizen. Private firearms ownership represents that seed, that dispersal of power that I talked about in my first post. Denied proper conditions, that seed is harmless and remains dormant. Given the right conditions of tyranny and governmental abuse, and that seed will sprout into a mighty force. The founders of this country brilliantly scattered this power, as embodied in the bill of Rights and the Constitution, to the four winds. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

To summarize, most of the reasons posted may have some truth but you are really not putting yourself in the mind of your foe.
You are projecting ideas on them that don't explain most of the variance.
Classic example is Chuck's Cold Dead Hands Musket Speech. We love it. An nondecided folk might say - Hmm - not for me.
[/quote]

On the contrary, I think I have seen my real foe quite clearly.. My foes are not the people you mention in your post, namely the uneducated, unempowered urban poor or the fat lazy dolts who cannot conceive of their government ever acting outside of their best interests. No, my foe is already possessed of power, be it political, economic or symbolic. My foe is the antigun politician, the rich contributers to these politicians and the liberal media who provides a bully pulpit for their seductive message. My foes fear me because I am educated, independent and armed. I will not let them rule me. I am one of those scattered seeds of power that the founders created when they wrote the constitution. I, and others like me, are the seeds that the socialist, Mandarin, liberal elite fear will grow into something powerful if they try to impose their tyrannical form of government. Left to our own devices, we seeds, we gun owners, are quiet peaceful folks, the very backbone of America. But like seeds, if we are thrown into the dirt, shat upon and pissed upon, we can turn into something quite different.


------------------
TRAVELLER, SHOULD YOUR ROAD LEAD YOU TO SPARTA, TELL THEM THAT YOU SAW US LYING HERE AS THE LAWS WILLED IT.

-Inscription on a Greek monument to Leonidas

[This message has been edited by Keystone (edited June 06, 2000).]
 
Wow, I am humbled to be a part of a discussion as illuminating as this one.

One thing I have always wrestled with is the false assumption that almost all adults are just like me. They read for pleasure, as well as for information. They defer immediate gratification for long-term benefit. They hold themselves and others to a high, but reasonable standard of conduct and ethics. They reflect deeply upon the issues of the day, and examine their own as well as others' views and beliefs in order to weed out false logic and hypocrisy. They may not agree with me, but they arrive at their views and conclusions in the same way I do. And they vote. <loud buzzer sounds> WRONG!!!! Thank you for playing....

Most don't vote. Most don't read AT ALL, much less for read for information. Most draw no distinction between the message and the messenger. Most have ABSOLUTELY NO sense of history or of the sacrifices our forebears have made on our behalf. Of this group, almost NONE of them want to accept responsibility... for anything. Not for themselves, their actions, their health, their retirement, their kids education. Nope, not my job. If even a quarter of these people can be reached and motivated enough to go to the polls just one time, for one candidate, then that person's election is assured.

Think of them as the jury in a courtroom, and the most vocal and visible advocates on both sides of the issue as lawyers. When these advocates write op-ed pieces, or appear on TV, they are not attempting to change each other's minds, but are "playing to the house", the jury, the uncommitted electorate. This jury of the vast unwashed, care little for logic, and less for the Constitution. Statistics are meaningless, or worse, accepted at face value, regardless of their veracity (13 kids a day, remember?) Worst of all, the judge in this case is the media, who decides how long each "lawyer" gets in front of the jury, what arguments are permissible, and who makes judgemental statements about the lawyers presentation. This judge is overwhelmingly in support of the antigun position. To complete the analogy, very few of the jurors will bother to render a vote for the verdict, and in fact, spend little or no time in the courtroom. Wonder why we don't seem to win, even though our cause is just, our statistics are accurate, and the Constitution is on our side? Until we accept this fact, that we will have to out-Oprah, out-Rosie, out-Streisand our opponents, we're condemned to fighting a defensive action that is utlimately doomed to failure. God help us all.
 
Keystone - you make good points. I'm talking about the average anti and the attitudes which would lead them not to support RKBA issues at the polls. Look at the MO CCW referendum. In that case, the urban poor and city folks sunk it.

They don't think into the power issues you talk about.

It's basically guns are bad and will hurt me.

About my icon claim - I believe that political parties only want power. Ideology is irrelevant to most. Some hard folk actually care about it but they are used by their parties.

Any major party will flip flop if the polls
support them. There are clearly liberal Dems who used to support the RKBA and some who do
because of their local consituents.

They don't care about the issues.

If Gore and Clinton and Feinstein thought that the votes that would get them elected could come from RKBA folks, they would be on their knees before us.

They don't think that and do think that by attacking the gun folk they get votes.
That is all they care about.

About revolution, I've seen and done some work on beliefs for gun ownership - the idea of guns for revolution just leaves most people cold. Selfdefense works as an issue.

Good discussion.

bye

Going to the Academics for the 2nd Amend. Conference this weekend. I'll share insights.

gm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top