Speaking of manipulating the language, I feel free to substitute the term “civilian disarmament” for “gun control.” That’s because I never met a gun control advocate who didn’t want to disarm someone – by preventing firearms purchases, making it difficult (if not impossible) for citizens to carry a firearm and/or banning certain types of guns (and ammunition). Why? There are three main reasons . . .
1. They think you’re crazy
Despite any and all evidence to the contrary, despite the fact that gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right, gun control advocates believe guns are FAR too dangerous to “allow” civilian ownership. In fact (or not), the antis think you have to be crazy to own a gun. Strike that. They believe you are crazy if you want or indeed own a gun. And if you are crazy, which you are for wanting to own or owning a gun, you shouldn’t have a gun. It’s only a matter of time before you flip out and kill someone.
It’s a classic Catch-22: “a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules.” But it’s no joke. The antis’ push for mental health disqualifications for gun ownership put them on the same path as the Russians and Nazis, who used “mental illness” as an excuse to segregate and/or murder their political opponents. A reported ten percent of Americans take anti-depressants. Would antis take away their guns? In a New York minute. And all the rest, too.
2. They think you’re a threat to government
The Second Amendment was written to protect citizens from government tyranny. While the antis argue that the 2A’s militia clause puts paid to that interpretation, it doesn’t and they know it. Antis are extremely uncomfortable with the idea that a gun-owning rabble could thwart the government’s efforts to provide a better life for all. Disarming potential insurrectionists members of society removes this serious and ongoing threat to “progress.”
Again, no joke. You may recall that President Obama felt obliged to chide Americans who see Big Government as an enemy of liberty. “We are the government” he asserted. This classic double-speak – we’re doing what you want us to do even though you don’t want us to do it – underpins gun control advocates’ abject inability to respect dissent. You can’t have a gun because you don’t know what’s good for you. Us. You stand in our way.
3. They hate you
There are lots of reasons – and I use that term loosely – why gun control advocates hate gun rights advocates. There are the [supposed] safety issues and insurrectionist worries mentioned above, the NRA’s effectiveness at blocking gun control legislation and more. But deep down they hate everything about you. Like racists who consider skin color a defining characteristic or abolitionists who view alcohol consumption as a sign of moral weakness or demonic possession, antis consider gun owners scum.
That’s why antis constantly portray gun owners as violent, unstable, uneducated, racist, inadequately endowed, homophobic morons. Without delving into psychological factors (e.g., psychological projection), it’s clear that the antis’ irrational campaign to disarm all Americans (save the police and other government agents) is not driven by love of life or liberty. It’s simple animus. You, the gun owner, are “the other.” Nothing you can say or do will convince them otherwise. They will not rest until you – and everyone like you – is disarmed. In short, you are their enemy. In this they are not wrong.
Isn’t all this a form of “projection” on the part of the traitors? I won’t call them antis. They don’t deserve such a mild description. They project their own fears and paranoia onto others or objects.
Good call. Traitor is a much better term.
Traitor is a scary-accurate description – especially considering that many anti-gunners also promote other anti-Constituion measures such as open borders, Obamacare, Patriot Act, taxation without representation, hate speech laws, terrorist watchlist in violation of due process, etc.
Agreed. I think another term is Statist who wanted central control. I never met an anti who wasn’t for central control. They want you disarmed because they want you part of the regime.
Lately, I have been reading about the antebellum period. One of the books I have been reading is called,
Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South.
Aside from slavery issue there was a parallel hatred the Northerners had for the Southerners that grew out similar stereotypes.
there was a stark difference in cultures that let to a second war for separation.
I feel it is inevitable we will have another war between the anti’s and the gun rights people.
Anti’s being statists will not rest until they have total control and total disarmament.
Gird yourselves.
That’s why the U.S. should be broken into three different sovereign nations:
California, Oregon (sorry Tom), Washington merges together to form the People’s Republic of Califoristan (PRC)
The east coast states can merge together to form the Democratic People’s Republic of Konnecticut (DPRK).
Since they can’t tolerate us (at all), in this way they can live happy and ecstatic about the infinite list of laws controlling every aspect of their lives and we can be free to live ours.
I think we should bring it to the floors of our state senates. It’s a Win – win (unless you live in one of those states).
How about Maryland, D.C., NOVA, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts can form their own country. The rest of the East Coast is pro-gun so don’t lump us in with them. Plus I like being close to the beach, the warmth, and not freezing my ass off in the Midwest especially during this time of year, thank you.
Why don’t they just move to Europe? They think Europe is so superior in every single way why don’t they move there? Hell they can probably become citizens of the UK and Ireland since their languages are English. Plus they can have all the gun control and “safety” they want. Ohh, but they might not like the whole magazine restriction paradigm not being a European thing. Not even gun-free UK has magazine restrictions. Only the UK’s Anglo-speaking former colonies have hard on’s for “magazine restrictions”.
So if they are REALLY dedicated to their cause they have Canada, New Zealand, and Australia to move to.
I know wishful thinking on my point.
Hey, we don’t want them here (in Canada) we are just starting to claw back some of our rights. (Think Canada is a gun free utopia? Tell that to my Vz. 58 “assault weapon” that I walked into the store, paid for, albeit had to show my licence but that is all, walked out with zero registration; legally of course, all within 15 minutes.)
You should underline #3. Many of the anti-firearms freedom people are nothing more than bigots who actively look for people to insult and demonize, mostly so they can feel better about themselves.
The sad thing is that MANY of these people actually own guns themselves—they just don’t think that the rest of us should have them. Somehow, they are better than the rest because they are to be the ones in control. It is the elitist mentality.
Bill Maher, Mark Kelley/Gabby Giffords, Mikey Moore, Mikey Bloomingidiot come to mind.
To add to that…
Anti-gunners fall into 3 categories:
1. Those who are hopelessly ignorant of the facts and the US Constitution. These people are driven by simple emotion. Delving into reality by reading history or considering the meaning and value of the US Constitution is too difficult or pedestrian. After all, who doesn’t want to save the children? They are easily swayed by the media and leftist portrayals of guns and gun enthusiasts. I believe these people represent the majority of the anti-2A crowd.
2. Politicians and potential politicians who need to be seen ‘doing something about gun violence.’ Generally left-leaners, they, too, rely upon and are swayed by emotion to make their points and decisions. For this reason, they feel they must appease those with similar views…group 1 above.
3. The true enemies of freedom. These are the ones who cannot tolerate a citizen exercising a natural right. After all, if you believe that your rights come from God or nature, then you can’t agree that they come from the government. Since these people worship at the altar of .gov, your infidelity to their deity is an affront to everything they believe. Some of these people are private citizens but the most dangerous are those in power…the President, Attorney General, Senator Feinstein, Bloomberg…as they willingly flaunt the restrictions placed upon them by the Constitution…a document that they would be happy to see go up in flames. These people truly do hate anyone who disagrees with their world view. I doubt there is any way to win them over.
Great OP article and great reply, RetLEO. I have to add a fourth group of what I would call “possible, semi-antis,” that is on one hand more benign and on the other perhaps more problematic for us because they cause us to face some things we don’t want to face and because there are a lot more of them than we care to admit. I know this because I know some of them quite well.
These are people who are not super-liberal, more middle of the road. They could vote for any party. They are not ignorant of the Constitution, in fact they are well educated. Some are lawyers. One I know is a prosecutor. They are not politically naive or easily swayed. They stay up on events, they understand the use and misuse of statistics and are politically and civically active themselves. They are not traitors. They love this country. In short, they are well-meaning, honest, intelligent, patriotic Americans who just have a different viewpoint than we do on a critical issue. To dismiss them as being anything else would be underestimating a threat to our gun rights and we cannot afford to do that. We have a hard time with this because we cannot conceive that anyone who disagrees with us cannot be anything but a bad actor, or stupid. That arrogance hurts our cause.
We have our facts: 2A, Heller, lowering crime rate, etc. They have their “facts:” 2A is already infringed, which we cannot deny, and anyone who thinks that will change in our lifetime is wearing a tinfoil hat, so infringement has long just been a matter of degree. Even the Heller decision, which is one of the best things that has happened for us in recent times, allows for more of it. So this group will have to be convinced more infringements are a bad thing. They can’t be just beaten over the head with our 2A “dogma.” We might be morally right in trying that, but we will lose ground.
Another tinfoil hat idea is rising up against the current government. Those who do would be violating the same Constitution they proclaim to protect AND the government has the resources to crush anyone who tries. Even if this argument were feasible, using it at this point does not help us. Yes, the government has marginalized the Constitution and that is wrong, but there are only tiny minorities on each end of the political spectrum who think we are anywhere near requiring a new revolution. So groups who even hint at overthrow are going to lose ground.
So what then? First, keep an eye on the hard-core antis, but don’t obsess over them. They can’t be convinced and they really don’t have much power on their own. Second concentrate on the group I’ve described. They are bipartisan thought leaders and they will listen to reason. But they need education and respect. Third, try to really understand legitimate liberal points of view. THAT DOES NOT MEAN AGREE! That means understand. Start the debate from a point of understanding, not dismissal.
I like your point. I think part of it also is that we all outsource certain pieces of thinking. We go along with the prevailing wisdom of our group, altered slightly by our natural inclinations, and maybe an article or two we read along the way. For these people, It’s not important to them, doesn’t affect them directly, and “experts agree” so they support gun control.
I think the key is to trick them to think, to verbalize their argument so it can be shown to be lacking. We have to convince them to reason with us. Not fight us. but it’s a fine line between reasoning with them and fighting. And honestly without an underlying friendship, I don’t see how to do that.
Yep, friendship is important. I have taken three of these people to the range. They loved it!
When they bring up anti sentiment, I listen, I don’t overreact. Then I very calmly give them something to think about. Sometimes will ask them a calm question that like you say, causes them to try to verbalize an objection and then struggle with it. Like one said about OC: “We can’t have a guy just walking into Walmart carrying a rifle on his back.” I said, “Yeah, that is pretty shocking to see, and I would never do it myself, but really, who got hurt? Then a lot of deflecting and stuttering because he still has an objection, but can’t verbalize it.
Then I said calmly and supportively, “Look, if the guy were a criminal, he wouldn’t have let you see his gun until it was too late and robbers rarely use rifles. Are we really at a place that we want to restrict people because they visually shock us? Have you seen the website, “The People of Walmart?” There’s a lot more shocking stuff there! Also, maybe he was just going to the sporting goods section to find a case that would fit it. If you lived in a small town, you would see a lot of that during hunting season. Not everyone has the same sensibility as urban folk.” Then I just let it go. I don’t try to win the point. I planted the seed. Again, listening, understanding, education.
“First, keep an eye on the hard-core antis, but don’t obsess over them. They can’t be convinced and they really don’t have much power on their own. Second concentrate on the group I’ve described. They are bipartisan thought leaders and they will listen to reason. But they need education and respect. Third, try to really understand legitimate liberal points of view.”
Absolutely true! Speaking to or about the Anti’s is a waste of breath. We can win hearts and minds at the margin; from the middle of the roaders who could drift either-way, pro- or anti-
it’s amazing how you can have some many people demonize you for something but I’d you were to get into a life or death situation their are is always “call the cops” the cops don’t make it in time for everything that happens in a matter of seconds!!!!! So to the anti’s you can go to hell and take Bloomberg with you!!!!!!! To give up the right to protect my family and friends, yeah go to hell……….
I always wonder about that militia cause but even if the antis are right about that (which they are not) but if in their world it is I believe everyone that filled out a draftcard IMO is part of a militia.
Who is the militia? It is all able bodied men.
Awe BS. There is only one reason anti gunners hate us. Because they see a utopian world which has no place for our ilk. Some of them simply can’t admit that evil exists and the rest of them convince themselves it will never happen to them, or you, or me, or anyone they know, or anyone you know, or hell anyone that matters.
The only thing that will change an anti’s mind is actually being presented with the choice, sheep out or buck up. Some will be true to their faith and sheep out because they know no better way. The rest will buck up and try to save their hides. Wonder if then they would change their minds? Probably not.
I agree. All antis, whether passive or aggressive, ignorant or knowledgeable, are entirely motivated by a denial of reality in favor/pursuit of a wishful utopian dream. The only thing that distinguishes one anti from another are the methods they use in that pursuit.
Nice article. Firearms legislation in the USA is like the classic example of a “slippery slope” if you look at what anybody could buy/make up till ’34, then the legislation in ’68, and the tricky treachery of Reagan in 1986 to the horrible cesspit of control that places like California, NY, and parts of IL have become.
Disgusting. We need to stand up and agressively defend and even cultivate/expand our constitutional rights. There is no way that the weapons we can arm ourselves with under the 2nd amendment would ever stand up to MRAPS and all the other gear the potential tyrants are scattering around the nation.
We need to take back the 2nd amendment.
They are living proof that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Or maybe they know very well that the first step to tyranny is necessarily disarm the people being ruled.
We are a threat to their government. A well armed populous can keep the government from becoming totalitarian.
One reason: fear
“In short, you are their enemy. In this they are not wrong.”
Self-fulfilling. I’m nobodies enemy as long as they leave me the hell alone.
I think it’s simply because they do not want responsibility. It seems the Antis and most of their beliefs are supposed to basically rid people of responsibility and place it upon the government. Owning guns is a responsibility, protecting ones self is a responsibility, putting food on the table is a responsibility. People these dqays want to throw off the chains of responsibility and let the .gov do everything for them.
It always seems that they suffer from extreme projection, they don’t want law-abiding people to have guns because they consider themselves too dangerous to have a gun, and obviously everybody else must be just as unstable as they are.
They Fear Freedom
Freedom is hard, often violent, demanding courage, resourcefulness, individual responsibility. Too many just want to crawl under a blanket and have Big Brother take care of them.
Those who demand freedom are a direct threat to that mindset.
100% agreeed. Freedom is an opportunity to act responsibly, and that opportunity is the definition of danger.
That scares the crap out of a ton of people. Heck, look at some of the crimes that have been created that aren’t even actual activities. You can get arrested for TALKING about possibly doing something. How scared do you think it makes the quivering liberal hordes to know that millions of people have the opportunity to operate something with deadly consequences? It terrifies them, that’s obvious. You know why?
Because they think they’re better than you are. Most of them are over educated, ivory-tower intellectual types who think they know “what’s best for you” because they think it’s what’s best for them. It’s why you see so many mom’s groups. Oh, OF COURSE, you gave birth, ergo you are a font of wisdom. Horse Poop to that.
A mother is no wiser than anybody else. And common sense is no substitute for a fancy education. When I was in graduate school and post-grad research, it never ceased to amaze me how many of my cohort honestly believed they had some anointed authority over “the masses”.
This article nailed it.
The attitude of the anti gunners resembles that of totalitarian systems. To the anti gunners, you and your family are non persons. Some of their supporters scare the hell out of me, they have a fanaticism that has similarities to the Nazi SS, Red Guard, NKVD and members of Islamic terror groups.
Agree.
They will not rest until you – and everyone like you – is disarmed.
No.
They will not rest until you – and everyone like you – is dead.
1) they are certain gun murder is up. It is down massively. They are profound flat earth paranoids, inverting the core metric on the issue
I kid you not. I live in deep red jurisdiction. 75% of my coworkers and colleagues and more than half my friends are Democrats because the place is 80% Democrat.
I don’t get into gun control debates, because they would probably have heart attack at the though anyone they know owns a gun.
But when the issue comes up at causal conversation, like after any gun related news event, I always ask the same question: “interesting, oh, is gun murder going up or down?”
I kid you not, they virtually all say a version of: “Are you kidding, watch the news, it is way up.”
These are people all with college degrees, most with grad degrees, and half involved in policy work of some kind. They routinely denigrate conservatives as flat earth fact deniers.
ChrisB,
I touched upon this in a reply to a post yesterday or the day before. There are a lot of people these days who consider themselves “intellectual superiors” based on academic achievement. Thus they are (a) never wrong, and (b) entitled to tell everyone else what to do.
The best response to such attitudes is a simple question, “Thus, in your mind, ‘lesser people’ have no inherent worth or rights, correct?” This is a lose-lose question for a self-ordained “intellectual superior” for obvious reasons. Hopefully, it gets them to reconsider their smug elitism and how it harms and degrades other people.
It is no coincidence that many of the same people who want to ban guns also want to do away or heavily restrict the First Amendment along with many other constitutionally guaranteed rights. You can be sure if the Second Amendment is done away with, the First will be the next to go.
Yes. Very astute.
I care less what those ignorant sheeple think say or do. An undeniable fact is that the human species is violent.
You can not ban firearms, nor 100% removed them from our society. I will NEVER be disarmed by the likes of Bloombag, Obama, Holder, Feinstein or needs a nose job Shannon Watts.
International Bolshevism.
4. They have poor self esteem coupled with ignorance. They think guns are far more difficult and mysterious than they really are. Because they don’t think they could handle the responsibility of a gun, they don’t think you can handle it either. The fact that you believe that you are skilled enough to use guns makes them feel either inadequate (which is unbearable) or distrustful of you- you must be lying.
I dare pile on with ‘untamed emotions and fear’.
They let their emotions be manipulated, which in turn causes them to fear that which they do not know/understand. Therefore, “Make it go away because I am scared of it. And I don’t want YOU to have it. But it’s OK for THEM (LEO) to have it because that’s what I was taught and can’t be wrong.”
They find it easier to deny others that which makes them ‘uncomfortable’. Weapons(guns). Freedom. Responsibility. Violence. Fire belching monster trucks at the county fair….
I agree with RF in his analysis except that I would add that this applies to the collective anti-gun rights people and should only be applied to individuals carefully. Individually, they each have their own motivations which can be difficult to discern *correctly*. Most of them are followers and fence sitters who don’t know better and don’t care enough to change their mind. They don’t care simply because shooting never enters their world. Just like so many people from NY City do not have drivers licenses; not knowing how to drive boggles the mind of the rest of us, but their is so much mass transit that they don’t need to drive (that and the lack of parking spaces).
I agree with what GMAN says about them wanting a utopia where there are no guns. They simply can’t acknowlege that there is no way to get there. This is what you get when somone reasons from emotion.
Just looking at photo speaks volumes.
Minor (if interesting in context) correction to the article: the abolitionist movement was about ending slavery, not banning alcohol. That distinction goes to the cleverly-named temperance movement. They ran around saying they only wanted to spread awareness of the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption, and asked only for reasonable, common sense restrictions on spirits in order to encourage responsible moderation. So they gave us the 16th Amendment, a complete prohibition on the manufacture, sale, possession, distribution, and consumption of any beer, wine, spirit, or intoxicating liquor.
Oops – 18th, not 16th
Guess I wasn’t the only one who caught that – the correct term, in the context of the sentence in the post, would be “prohibitionist.”
At least before the Civil War, temperance and suffrage often went along with emancipation of the slaves. Yes, many of them were the original Republicans. Much of this came from their religion – the ones in my family were very devout, but not what we would call “evangelists” today, because proselytizing about religion was not that popular (they saved their proselytizing for booze, voting, and slavery).
In other news, water is wet.
I tend to agree with all three characterizations of gun grabbers.
And I am still at a loss to understand:
(1) Why does everyone keep thinking that gun grabbers are trying to “have a conversation”?
(2) Why do we continuously fail to call-out gun grabbers for their incessant attacks on our character, humanity, and rights?
(1) Most of the people who think the antis actually want a conversation are antis.
(2) Calling them out would do nothing at best, and could actually hurt us at worst. It’s massively hypocritical, but anything we say to them, they will twist around and use it to attack us further. Hell, just look at their sheer hatred of the NRA. The NRA could directly save the lives of 10,000 nuns and 10,000 orphaned puppies, and the antis would STILL find some way to hate them for it. They extend that same attitude to us.
More importantly, the low-information fence-sitters who make up the bulk of the antis see that. I’m sure the percentage of antis who would like nothing better than to see us all executed is fairly small, which means that the majority of them are nowhere near that vitriolic. And they see that. I have personally met a number of POTG who were anti-gun, but then they stated looking at places like the CSGV’s Facebook page, and saw the sheer vitriol that characterizes the leaders of the gun control movement. And they changed their minds because of that.
“Common sense,” “having a conversation,”, and “gun safety” are all PR phrases used to make us look like the unreasonable ones. It’s that simple. The uninformed anti-gunners swallow it hook, line, and sinker. The uniformed are probably sincere in believing that “no one wants to take your guns.” They just don’t realize that a very vocal minority believe that the end justifies any lie they tell. It does not help that the MSM is almost entirely anti-gun such that they get to define and spread the terms and phrases they use in their PR.
Newspeak as defined by the Ministry of Truth.
Yes, exactly! Most vocal use it knowingly while the majority of the antis take it for the surface meaning and look no further.
Let them hate me. Let them fear me. Let them stay away from me and we’ll get along just fine.
its funny how little robert realizes about himself.
Happy slaves don’t like to be reminded that some of us refuse the collar and refuse to be slaves like them. If they are going to be slaves, they demand everyone else is one too, because then they won’t feel as inferior and it’s what their masters want.
Freedom is slavery. Love Big Brother.
As I said in a thread from the other day, don’t take gun grabbers lightly.
They hate the 2nd A and want a complete abolition on civilian owned weapons, regardless of what say to the contrary.
You are thought of as subhuman, heartless monster for owning guns, which, in their minds, gives them the right to take your rights, from your cold dead hands, if need be.
Agree, if you drop the need be, they will just do it.
Let’s not forget the simple pleasure a sociopath gets from knowing his manipulations resulted in misery for those who dared threaten his inflated sense of self worth. Do you really think they would feel guilty if EVERY person charged with a gun crime was a little old man with an antique revolver? I bet it would make them all happier than a pig in the mud.
RF,
The term civilian.
I have never heard it spoken in a non-disparaging tone, especially by the so-called authorities.
We, people of the gun, taxpayers of these United States, are CITIZENS.
Citizens are free people.
It is citizen disarmament. Pure and simple.
Or did we, somehow, become a military junta banana republic, Estados Unidos Ahmerika, ran by one, El Presidente Barry Soetaro?
That the State Run Media even gives these facists air time is a disgrace.
The argument that any single fool is afraid of someone, or that any single fool believe’s someone is mentally defective, or that any single fool’s interpretation of “common-sense” is superior to the law,
and justify’s depriving ALL citizens of their god-given natural right to self-defense, as described and affirmed in the Bill of Rights, can be easily revealed for the totalitarian thought control that it is by the “substitution game” – simply substitute “black youths” for “someone” or “law abiding gun owner”.
Wait. Thats what Bloomberg said in Aspen, right?
The hypocrisy is astounding, but of course, nothing new for the coordinated propaganda machine that includes the Reliable Party Organs of the mass media, the echo chambers of Vox, Politico, Media Matters, HuffPo, etc, and the Journolistas of too many others to mention in the progtard left-wing of the Democratic Party who take orders from the Elite, as passed out by TalkingPointsMemo, OFA, and other direct and indirect channels to the top, at the WH, the DNC, and those who fund them, Soros, foreign money, and others who pull the puppets strings, like the Ayers and their ilk.
Here’s are a few more apt descriptions:
Pro-criminal, as none of their “common sense gun laws” deter criminals and only negatively affect law abiding citizens.
Pro-Vicitimhood, because better to be raped than have a chance to defend oneself.
Anti-Constitution, Anti-History, Anti-Justice, Anti-Liberty, Anti-Defense, Anti-Self Reliance, Anti-Responsibility,Anti-Freedom or just plain Anti-American, because they are painfully and willfully ignorant of the significant and crucial role firearms played in the inception and formation of these United States. And they are clueless that firearms still play (and always will so long as they are in existence) a crucial role as primary enforcer of our value system, way of life, and are essential to ensure “liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness”.
Anti-statistics, Anti-facts , or Pro-Delusion because it seems they always create a myopic worst case scenario in their head then try to pass it off as “well that’s how it would be all the time” without any regard to facts or real statistics. They are very similar to a those kooky religious cults that sell kool-aid to their followers later self-implode and self-destruct under the weight of their own BS.
I’ve thought about this some more and have reached a sad but sobering conclusion. Anti-gun folks are evil. Or just ignorant. Maybe both.
Hear me out. Best case is they are so ignorant they don’t know it, or worst case, they do know what they are doing. If it’s the latter, then perhaps we need to chance our tactics.
I’ve tried to simplify the entire pro/anti debate into it’s simplest form – no rhetoric, just it’s bare bones so even a child could understand what the core issues are.
First thing we have to do is define the sides. There are two sides to human nature. Good and Evil.
The Good Side
The good side simply wants to lawfully pursue their life goals without causing harm to anyone else.
The Evil Side
The evil side wants to fulfill their life goals the easiest way possible regardless of who gets hurt in the process.
So, as you can see above, Evil already has a predisposition of using whatever means necessary to achieve their life goals, most of it being unlawful if that proves to be the path of least resistance. This is typically employed in the form of violence and ultimately is self-destructive in nature (hence why so many mass shooters off themselves).
Good, on the other hand, does not look for confrontation, but will do whatever is necessary to protect self and other good people. Good relies on a value system, laws, and morality to function. But deep down, Good knows that Evil doesn’t play nice and will rise to meet it head on if that is what is necessary to preserve it’s life.
History tells us these two forces will always be at odds, and when you have two opposing forces, there inherently is a balance that exists. Since Evil is self-destructive, it can never truly “win”. The best form of existence it can achieve is a dictatorship where it maintains power and just persists.
So there you have it, a really simple description of human existence on this planet. Now here is the important part. As of right now, the balance of Good and Evil is currently fought, all over the globe, with weapons. And front and center are, you guessed it: Guns.
And this shouldn’t be surprising if you are a student of history. Firearms, as they exist today, are the most effective means of self-protection we have. They are the ultimate evolution of a projectile weapon. A very lethal stone.
Now, contrary to what most “anti-gun” folks think they believe….
The Good side uses firearms for good deeds. The vast majority of these are quite mundane, like gathering food (ie, hunting), for sport, for recreation. A decent percentage of good deeds are in the form of DGU, or protecting other good citizens, time spent honing defensive skills at the range, or just sitting in a safe if the need arises for defense of self, property, or loved ones.
As we know, the Evil side uses firearms without any restrictions, qualms, or remorse. This means they use them for whatever myriad of crimes their users feel advance their individual or group goals — to the direct or indirect detriment of the Good people in society.
Here is the second reality anti-gun people never seem to “get”….
The reality is, Evil will never go away and it will never stop being evil and self-destructive, violent, and just a pain in everyone’s rear. It is here to stay and so, with that, the only recourse the good side has, to counter evil and preserve our own way of life, is to be equally armed and vigilant in the event evil visits us.
And that’s the simplest way I can summarize the story and role of firearms in our day to day lives.
My third point:
To ignore this representation of reality is dangerous. If you start chipping away at the only legal means good people have to defend themselves against evil people, then you are, to be blunt, on the side of evil whether you know it or not. And I’m sorry, stupidity or ignorance is no excuse not to realize this.
With groups like ISIS, terrorists, misguided youth, or whatever form evil takes, it’s so unfortunate that people are letting emotion cloud the hard truth that there is no way to protect all the good people without getting your hands dirty. It is not possible. Evil people, when it comes down to it, have displayed a very real willingness to kill anyone, and themselves, to get what they want.
And this is why, dear anti-gunners, Good people carry firearms, and why we will always fight for our rights as Good citizens to carry where ever we go, because we don’t live in a world without Evil.
None of us Good folk have the time to waste telling the ignorant or stupid people how the world really is. How many ISIS’s and 911’s do you need to wake up? This isn’t paranoia. It’s the way it is.
Statistically, every lawful new gun owner and those who currently carry are part of the DGU waiting list and a first responder. Do you understand what that means? If not, let me spell it out for you.
That means at some point in the future, anyone that is lawfully carrying may have to defend their lives against an Evil person in a lethal confrontation. A confrontation that would otherwise ultimately lead to injury or death of that Good person if that Good person was unarmed. We, as Good people, understand this, which is why we opt to legally carry a firearm in the first place. We don’t want to get in a life or death struggle and would live happy lives if we can avoid it, but we want the best chance of surviving if and when it does happen. Again, because we understand and accept Evil exists in the world.=.
It is no one else’s business to tell us how we deal with Evil or to deprive Good people of the most effective means to counter it.
The end.
And yet, despite all of that, a lot of Anti-gun folk have guns. Because it’s only fair for them to have them, they just don’t want you to own one.
Fudds are the unwitting tools of anti-gunners
There is another that rarely get’s mentioned; as liberals the demographics of homicide in this country are deeply unsettling to anti-gun folks. They desire a “sanitized for your protection” society, but are unwilling to address who does a hugely disproportionate amount of the killing in our society. It seems the cognitive dissonance of this world view expresses itself as hatred for lawful gun owners. One need only look at anti-gun editorial cartoons for an example of this. The source of gun violence is always depicted as a fat paranoid redneck. Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if one of these cartoons depicted a comparable caricature of an “urban youth” with saggy pants, a glock, and an EBT card. It is much more appealing for them to paint white rural males as the source of all evil.
Although i think that some politicians DO have ulterior motives for disarming the public, the sole reason for so many civilians supporting their view on ‘gun control’ is simply due to a seriously deep rooted phobia of guns. There is no other reason why they would TOTALLY ignore the overwhelming and undeniable stats that these mass-murder sprees that they protest guns for happen in specifically targeted locations because they have big, bold signs reading “gun free zone”. Now to any logical thinking person with ‘common sense’ this would be the very FIRST issue to change in the fight against these killing sprees. But no, the ‘antis’ refuse to even acknowledge the issue because it goes against their warped idea that all guns are ‘bad’.
“the sole reason for so many civilians supporting their view on ‘gun control’ is simply due to a seriously deep rooted phobia of guns.” Quoted from your post.
Nicely put. It plays right into Eric, the traitor, Holder’s plan to “brainwash” the people against guns. Looks like it worked to a large extent.
All three reasons stem from the same root in the end– You’re a threat to the government. They hate your for that, which makes it necessary to assign you a label: cray-cray.
That said, government often takes on the face of the person in power from the top down. I first realized this in the military under the Clinton administration as leadership in both the military and federal sectors began to emulate the behavior of the Attitude in Chief, then watched a complete 180* as Bush, then his son came into office. it’s no so much “government” as it is those sucking to positions of power. If you can get a strong 2A canidate in office, you will be amazed at how accomidating the ATF will suddenly become.