Hi-Point Firearms Forums banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,349 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Why does it seem that the typical "anti" view of gun owners is "insecure/stupid people who have gigantic boners for killing animals and people"? I, for one, have no desire or intention to ever kill a person with any of my guns (which is not to say that I wouldn't were it necessary, but I sure as hell am not getting off on the idea). I have no problem with hunting but it's not a power trip or some sick desire that would make me want to kill an animal.

I was trying to explain to a lib/hippie/feel-goody friend of mine that the reason I own guns is because I believe the strongest way to assert personal freedom is the peaceful ownership of arms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,817 Posts
Best story I ever read was a anti saying "all guns should be banned".

Guy from Alabama asked him if he owned one to which rather disdainfuly replied "Of course not"

Alabama gentlemen replied " Then how are you going to get mine?" "Well pass a law of course" was the nervous answer.

"Well do us a favor have the courage to at least try yourself instead of getting someone else's son or daughter killed trying to disarm me. I may even give them to you after Ive unloaded them".

The anti hauled butt. You cannot deal with these people they are at heart cowards, treat them as such. We have tried reasoning with them for 40 years, God is trying to tell us something.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,232 Posts
Why does it seem that the typical "anti" view of gun owners is "insecure/stupid people who have gigantic boners for killing animals and people"? I, for one, have no desire or intention to ever kill a person with any of my guns (which is not to say that I wouldn't were it necessary, but I sure as hell am not getting off on the idea). I have no problem with hunting but it's not a power trip or some sick desire that would make me want to kill an animal.

I was trying to explain to a lib/hippie/feel-goody friend of mine that the reason I own guns is because I believe the strongest way to assert personal freedom is the peaceful ownership of arms.
people who villainize their ideological opponent do so out of immaturity of thought. if they cannot formulate an argument, they insult, for example by saying "people who own guns are insecure/stupid people who have gigantic boners for killing animals and people"

its not an exclusive trait of liberals. many people on many sides of many issues possess it too.

It's been my experience that ignorance of the facts is what causes people to fear something. education is the best method, but some people will never see your side. thats just human nature
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,754 Posts
It's quite simple really.

Libs want to exterminate individualism in favor of collectivism. If individuals own guns they can't be collectivised.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,261 Posts
It's quite simple really.

Libs want to exterminate individualism in favor of collectivism. If individuals own guns they can't be collectivised.
I disagree. Only because I am a "lib" and I don't favor collectivism over individualism. Some libs may but not all. I do favor some aspects of socialism over unbridled capitalism. But that isn't to say that I am a collectivist. So really, it isn't "that" simple. Also Iwould disagree that people who own guns cant be collectivised only using christianity as an example. I dont realy think the bible was real big on "be yourself."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,349 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
It's quite simple really.

Libs want to exterminate individualism in favor of collectivism. If individuals own guns they can't be collectivised.
I think that's the governmental side of it but I don't think Joe prius-driving occasional-marijuana-using Schmoe is thinking that. I think he's just scared.

The theory that makes the most sense to me is that people are scared of guns and weapons because they are scared of what they subconsciously think they would do with them. So Joe is scared of guns because he only thinks of them as killing machines, used in anger - so if Joe got angry and had a gun, he might kill somebody and that is then projected upon everybody else. They don't seem to understand that rational people can own guns without inflicting violence intentionally or accidentally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,875 Posts
It's quite simple really.

Libs want to exterminate individualism in favor of collectivism. If individuals own guns they can't be collectivised.
I think that's the governmental side of it but I don't think Joe prius-driving occasional-marijuana-using Schmoe is thinking that. I think he's just scared.

The theory that makes the most sense to me is that people are scared of guns and weapons because they are scared of what they subconsciously think they would do with them. So Joe is scared of guns because he only thinks of them as killing machines, used in anger - so if Joe got angry and had a gun, he might kill somebody and that is then projected upon everybody else. They don't seem to understand that rational people can own guns without inflicting violence intentionally or accidentally.
I think that Joe Schmoe is anti gun because he's had very little, if any, actual experience with firearms or shooting sports. Not sure how to fix that, but I think that's the root of the problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,754 Posts
It's quite simple really.

Libs want to exterminate individualism in favor of collectivism. If individuals own guns they can't be collectivised.
I disagree. Only because I am a "lib" and I don't favor collectivism over individualism. Some libs may but not all. I do favor some aspects of socialism over unbridled capitalism. But that isn't to say that I am a collectivist. So really, it isn't "that" simple. Also Iwould disagree that people who own guns cant be collectivised only using christianity as an example. I dont realy think the bible was real big on "be yourself."
Liberalism is collectivism, collectivism is liberalism. Capitalism is individualism, and vis versa.

I will concede that one can exhibit aspects of either characteristic, but with liberalism it tends to become a slippery slope that snowballs to the point of wiping out capitalism/individualism. Just look at the ever growing collection of new laws that get passed every year. When was the last time laws were removed from the books in any significant way? When was the last time government agencies were eliminated rather than created?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
i own guns because the constitution says i have a right to. they are the last bastion of defense a people has over a tyranical governament. and with what we have in washington we may need them shortly for just that purpose.

SW
+1 the government need to fear its people to keep its self at bay. same thing as the cold war, what major reason did niether side fire? fear of retibution.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,261 Posts
It's quite simple really.

Libs want to exterminate individualism in favor of collectivism. If individuals own guns they can't be collectivised.
I disagree. Only because I am a "lib" and I don't favor collectivism over individualism. Some libs may but not all. I do favor some aspects of socialism over unbridled capitalism. But that isn't to say that I am a collectivist. So really, it isn't "that" simple. Also Iwould disagree that people who own guns cant be collectivised only using christianity as an example. I dont realy think the bible was real big on "be yourself."
Liberalism is collectivism, collectivism is liberalism. Capitalism is individualism, and vis versa.

I will concede that one can exhibit aspects of either characteristic, but with liberalism it tends to become a slippery slope that snowballs to the point of wiping out capitalism/individualism. Just look at the ever growing collection of new laws that get passed every year. When was the last time laws were removed from the books in any significant way? When was the last time government agencies were eliminated rather than created?
lib?er?al?ism??/?l?b?r??l?z?m, ?l?br?-/ [lib-er-uh-liz-uhm, lib-ruh-] Show IPA

-noun 1. the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. 3. (sometimes initial capital letter) the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics.
4. a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.

col?lec?tiv?ism??/k??l?kt??v?z?m/ [kuh-lek-tuh-viz-uhm]

-noun the political principle of centralized social and economic control, esp. of all means of production
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
It's quite simple really.

Libs want to exterminate individualism in favor of collectivism. If individuals own guns they can't be collectivised.
I disagree. Only because I am a "lib" and I don't favor collectivism over individualism. Some libs may but not all. I do favor some aspects of socialism over unbridled capitalism. But that isn't to say that I am a collectivist. So really, it isn't "that" simple. Also Iwould disagree that people who own guns cant be collectivised only using christianity as an example. I dont realy think the bible was real big on "be yourself."
Liberalism is collectivism, collectivism is liberalism. Capitalism is individualism, and vis versa.

I will concede that one can exhibit aspects of either characteristic, but with liberalism it tends to become a slippery slope that snowballs to the point of wiping out capitalism/individualism. Just look at the ever growing collection of new laws that get passed every year. When was the last time laws were removed from the books in any significant way? When was the last time government agencies were eliminated rather than created?
lib?er?al?ism??/?l?b?r??l?z?m, ?l?br?-/ [lib-er-uh-liz-uhm, lib-ruh-] Show IPA

-noun 1. the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. 3. (sometimes initial capital letter) the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics.
4. a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.

col?lec?tiv?ism??/k??l?kt??v?z?m/ [kuh-lek-tuh-viz-uhm]

-noun the political principle of centralized social and economic control, esp. of all means of production
so, wait a sec. if you libs advocate the freedom of the individuals then how is it you are trying so hard to control our gun rights, medical and media? if you are being liberal, then be liberal with everything!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,261 Posts
Some libs suck what can I say. Personaly I think the right to arms is a very progressive idea. I think the rght to keep and bear arms is a human rights issue and all people everywhere should be allowed firearms. I think there should be programs in place to help those people get arms that otherwise couldnt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,349 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
so, wait a sec. if you libs advocate the freedom of the individuals then how is it you are trying so hard to control our gun rights, medical and media? if you are being liberal, then be liberal with everything!
Because the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are wrongly applied to the two majority parties here, of which one is socially liberal in the sense of allowing what many consider "deviant" or immoral behaviour, and using that as a platform to get people to vote for large-government pro-regulation politicians. The other party is socially "conservative" in that they get all incensed about what the other party tolerates/supports and use the promise of making that illegal to get people to vote for large-government pro-regulation politicians.

That said, I would be super thankful if you guys wouldn't mind taking your liberal vs. collectivist debate into another thread. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,754 Posts
lib?er?al?ism??/?l?b?r??l?z?m, ?l?br?-/ [lib-er-uh-liz-uhm, lib-ruh-] Show IPA

2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
That definition (BTW - not from Webster's!) is an oxymoron when contrasted wtih reality. How does "advocating the freedom of the individual" jive with anti-gun laws, not to mention all the other government interventions that detract from true individual freedom? It's the complete opposite.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,279 Posts
It's quite simple really.

Libs want to exterminate individualism in favor of collectivism. If individuals own guns they can't be collectivised.
I think that's the governmental side of it but I don't think Joe prius-driving occasional-marijuana-using Schmoe is thinking that. I think he's just scared.

The theory that makes the most sense to me is that people are scared of guns and weapons because they are scared of what they subconsciously think they would do with them. So Joe is scared of guns because he only thinks of them as killing machines, used in anger - so if Joe got angry and had a gun, he might kill somebody and that is then projected upon everybody else. They don't seem to understand that rational people can own guns without inflicting violence intentionally or accidentally.
Well, think about it... In the media, when do you see guns? 99.9% of the time, someone's dying. You se it in action movies, crime shows, all cases where they're being used against other people with dubious morality. If that's all you've been exposed to, how could you be expected to be pro-gun?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
That is because the Media is as antigun. They NEVER tell of the people who survive either in the wilderness or on the wild streets. They never tell of the little old lady who saved herself and maybe others by stopping a robbery, rape, or anything else. They never tell of the guy on his way home using the gun to save himself or someone else from a carjacker or a thug attempting to do harm.
Guns are used to stop crime to stop injury or death for someone. Guns have been used in this country for good and for evil. The good must fight evil. THIS is what they don't tell on the news.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
855 Posts
I dont know what I actually qualify as when it comes to all this. I believe in my rights, and the rights of others. When you have done something to have your righs revolked, then take it like a man. I have done nothing wrong so leave my rights in place. I dont want someone comming to me and saying, "your military service and the service of others means nothing cough em up". I FIRMLY believe in "PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER"! If I have superior firepower than there WILL be peace in my home. I believe that if your man enough to say I cant have my firearms, you need to be man enough to come get them!
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top