Truth, Why Antis Hate Gun Owners.

[Member 3687]

There have always been at least two sides/opinions on every issue since the beginning of time on every subject from guns, cars, motorcycles, gloves, boots, calibers and elections.

It is ingrained into man because we have free will. I have read the Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf and a few others and in theory many of the things they talk about sound good but if and only if you remove man from the equation. I say this because man is a free spirit, greedy, evil, lazy, power hungry and only looks out for himself and because of this it has been the down fall of every country that has tried socialism/communism/fascism in all forms.

This is also the reason they had to imprison or kill all that do not feel the way they do in order for it to sort of work.

Now in the US we have two very divided sides, one being the socialist/communist/fascist (progressive) and the others who believe in the Constitution that founded this country. Many of these other countries started down the same rabbit hole by being very divided just like us, then the verbal war started and they ended with the civil war, imprisonment and killing. Is history repeating itself?

This is also the reason the ANTI has to shout you down, call you names and take away the only means you have to defend yourself because they know it is the only way they can have their way because you are an enemy of the state because you're a gun owning Racist, Homophobe, Xenophobe. It is much easier to arrest you when you do not comply, if you are unarmed.

There are many Antis that just know nothing about firearms and they are just afraid of them and for that reason and that reason only they want them banned. They also have never needed one for any reason and feel if they have never needed one then the whole world should not need one. They honestly feel that it will make the world safer.

Then there are those with an agenda that I have stated above and that is to disarm the enemy for the good of their cause.

We now have doctors in the news stating guns are a health crisis yet 70,000 died in 2017 from drug over dose and you hear very little about that. I have seen articles about dementia and firearms, red flag laws and so many other things all trying to disarm you because you are a threat to society and because you do not realize it, you must be delusional.

A free person with a firearm is a threat to progressivism (whatever it is) because we for the most part do not rely on the government to protect us.

 

[GWS]

Bah!
The antis are simply cowards. They fear guns and are resentful of gun owners because they aren't so they screech like monkeys in a tree when a big cat is in the forest.
Our ownership of guns reminds them of their own fear and rather than address their fear they would prefer to render us as impotent as they are.
Guns represent a level of self reliance that the antis lack. Their security is the mob and individualism frightens them so they resent the individual.

 

[tac]

View attachment 523546

I seem to recall a very wise man once saying that he who gives up his liberty in order to procure safety will end up with neither.

 

[The Heretic]

It is ingrained into man because we have free will. I have read the Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf and a few others and in theory many of the things they talk about sound good but if and only if you remove man from the equation. I say this because man is a free spirit, greedy, evil, lazy, power hungry and only looks out for himself and because of this it has been the down fall of every country that has tried socialism/communism/fascism in all forms.

I.E., human nature - and I don't think it is solely about free will - it is human nature as a whole.

The failing of many posts in this thread is that they exhibit that same nature; calling opponents "sick"/etc., saying their ideas/opinions are "bizarre"/etc. They are not - this is typical human nature. Humans are, by nature, lazy and conformist - among other things - and human nature means the majority group want individuals to conform. Human nature means that most people want what they perceive as "security"; they don't want to be fearful all the time, so when someone offers them "security" in the form of supporting this or that group (especially government and religion) that offers them that "security" (true or not), they support it and they try to force others to conform.

Also, humans are easily manipulated - we respond to fear (of guns, of people of a different "race"/ethnicity/etc., of behavior). We respond to someone offering to give us goods and services at the cost of others. We respond to jealousy (class warfare). There are a myriad of ways that humans are manipulated and politicians/"leaders" understand them all.

On any side of any issue, 99% of the people involved, do not think rationally or objectively - they respond emotionally, making them easily manipulated.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

A question I have is :
Why do I have to give up something because you hate it....?

I dislike brussel sprouts ...should they be banned or limited...?
I also dislike it when folks make blanket statements....should I curtail your speech...?
Nor do I adhere to a particular religion...do I get to say who or how you should worship...?
Why then , does someone get to make a choice for me in regards to what kinds of firearms I can own or even if I should own firearms...?
Andy

 

[Aero Denezol]

They hate us because they can't ignore us. And they are scared of us.

"Hatred is the coward's revenge for intimidation" -George Bernard Shaw. This is a favorite quote of theirs.. use it against them.

 

[jackrv]

I own guns and ride a bike(motorcycle), ergo I am a double pariah, maybe a triple as I also have a pickup.

 

[MannyGlocks]

GWS hit the nail on the head.

 

[Stomper]

I.E., human nature - and I don't think it is solely about free will - it is human nature as a whole.

The failing of many posts in this thread is that they exhibit that same nature; calling opponents "sick"/etc., saying their ideas/opinions are "bizarre"/etc. They are not - this is typical human nature. Humans are, by nature, lazy and conformist - among other things - and human nature means the majority group want individuals to conform. Human nature means that most people want what they perceive as "security"; they don't want to be fearful all the time, so when someone offers them "security" in the form of supporting this or that group (especially government and religion) that offers them that "security" (true or not), they support it and they try to force others to conform.

Also, humans are easily manipulated - we respond to fear (of guns, of people of a different "race"/ethnicity/etc., of behavior). We respond to someone offering to give us goods and services at the cost of others. We respond to jealousy (class warfare). There are a myriad of ways that humans are manipulated and politicians/"leaders" understand them all.

On any side of any issue, 99% of the people involved, do not think rationally or objectively - they respond emotionally, making them easily manipulated.

^^^^^ This is it.... right here. ^^^^^






I would also add two things (in response to the OP):


1.
No one hates tyranny, as long as it's THEIR brand or tyranny.


2.
They hate you because you exist.

 

[RicInOR]

A question I have is :
Why do I have to give up something because you hate it....?

I dislike brussel sprouts ...should they be banned or limited...?
I also dislike it when folks make blanket statements....should I curtail your speech...?
Nor do I adhere to a particular religion...do I get to say who or how you should worship...?
Why then , does someone get to make a choice for me in regards to what kinds of firearms I can own or even if I should own firearms...?
Andy

Socialists believe, and defend, group rights.
Libertines believe, and defend, individual rights.

If 27 people get together to celebrate that mistake that is brussels sprouts, that does not make them socialist. When then start insisting we tolerate, accept, or more likely, embrace them, that is socialist position.

 

[bbbass]

I wonder what the snowflakes think of all the guns walking around clackamas town center right now? Even on horseback outside.... things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm

Didn't a good guy with a gun save the day there? Or was it a different mall shooting spree?

My other theory is that some people don't just dislike loud noises, but intently hate them and anyone associated with them.

Most guys LOVE loud noises... at least when young they do... Us old guys are half deaf and half sensitive hearing.

One relatively recent example was there was a bill proposed, and fortunately didn't pass, by a state representative to completely ban studded tires due to the added wear and tear on the roads. He represented a district in Portland and when challenged on the idea, sniveled out something like "you really don't need them."

They do this every year!!!

Similarly, there are needs that our firearms meet, regardless of whatever tomfoolery some in Salem engage in..

They do new gun laws every year too!

I didn't read the OP but I DON'T CARE WHAT PEOPLE THINK OF ME! Especially when it comes to guns

What people think of guns in general comes back to bite us in the azz.

Actually not very many people hate gun owners, the media just tries to make it look that way.NOBODY has given me crap about owning firearms

You're not talking to the right/wrong people!

The failing of many posts in this thread is that they exhibit that same nature; calling opponents "sick"/etc.,

And some things are said poking fun/humor. Do I really have to put every single time for people to get that its jesting???

 

[11Charlie]

What people think of guns in general comes back to bite us in the azz.

I sold them all. I'm just here because of you guys! Next question.

 

[bbbass]

I'm not opposed to liberalizm... as long as they keep it to themselves!

 

[Flymph]

Socialists believe, and defend, group rights.
Libertines believe, and defend, individual rights.

If 27 people get together to celebrate that mistake that is brussels sprouts, that does not make them socialist. When then start insisting we tolerate, accept, or more likely, embrace them, that is socialist position.

No... the socialist brussel sprout would be that group going to the farmer, the transport service and shop and taking ownership of those business' for subsidized distribution. The commie brussel sprout would be similar, but with the mandate that everyone has to eat brussel sprouts, and they would be provided in daily ration kits.
What you're explaining is the ideological brussel sprout, like christians converting natives. It's also pretty evil tho.

 

[coyote223]

 

[wired]

No... the socialist brussel sprout would be that group going to the farmer, the transport service and shop and taking ownership of those business' for subsidized distribution. The commie brussel sprout would be similar, but with the mandate that everyone has to eat brussel sprouts, and they would be provided in daily ration kits.
What you're explaining is the ideological brussel sprout, like christians converting natives. It's also pretty evil tho.

Thats the concept in theory. What would really happen is the commie brussell sprout would be grown on land that had been taken over from the farmers who had raised them for generation. Those farmers would be summarily executed for being enemies of the people. Teachers would be emptied from the schools to raise brussell sprouts . All the brussell sprouts the teachers raise would be taken from them and the teachers will starve to death. The brussell sprouts will be taken to a warehouse and will rot in place while the rest of the populace, who have nothing else to eat besides the brussell sprouts that are rotting in warehouses, starve to death.

 

[Flymph]

Thats the concept in theory. What would really happen is the commie brussell sprout would be grown on land that had been taken over from the farmers who had raised them for generation. Those farmers would be summarily executed for being enemies of the people. Teachers would be emptied from the schools to raise brussell sprouts . All the brussell sprouts the teachers raise would be taken from them and the teachers will starve to death. The brussell sprouts will be taken to a warehouse and will rot in place while the rest of the populace, who have nothing else to eat besides the brussell sprouts that are rotting in warehouses, starve to death.

Brussel sprouts and Roses!

 

[ZigZagZeke]

There's a field of study called socio-biology. Socio-biology is the study of how genetics affect social behavior. E. O. Wilson was a main proponent of this field of study. He found that when it comes to human beings, the two sexes have very different schemes of social organization.

Males tend to establish a hierarchy of leadership, establish rules, and then negotiate exceptions to those rules. When the rules are violated it ultimately results in physical violence.

Females tend not to allow hierarchy and established leaders. Females operate by consensus. When a female gets too far ahead of the pack, or accumulates too much power she will be brought down, not through physical violence, but by concerted group social pressure. What is socially acceptable in a female group is fluid and depends on the momentary consensus.

All of this grows out of thousands of centuries of hunter-gatherer survival. Women cooperated and worked together as a group to harvest berries, fruit, etc, or to process game killed by their hunter male counterparts. Men hunted as a group, but with leaders who assigned tasks, and made plans. For men operating independently to carry out a group plan, their activities required previously agreed upon rules and a pretty rigid hierarchy of leadership.

We still operate by these social styles today. Women want to make decisions by consensus. They don't see a need for published rules if everyone can simply agree on what is the right thing to do in any particular situation. When women do operate by published rules they often can't understand when or why it's appropriate to reinterpret or break them. Hence, we have "zero tolerance" policies. Men want to choose leaders, publish rules, and then do their assigned tasks. Men are results oriented. If it makes sense to change or ignore a rule in order to accomplish a goal they will do so. Women are not goal oriented. They are process oriented. It doesn't matter so much where you end up as long as everyone was treated fairly along the way.

As women have migrated more and more into political and corporate leadership their preferred methods of operation have come with them. We see more and more decision making by consensus. When females deal with published rules we often see either a disregard for the rules altogether or a rigid "zero tolerance" policy in order to be "fair". When it comes to firearms, which have been an inherently male area of endeavor, they are seen by females as the single most problematic social authority issue. They are the symbol of male independent action and thought. They go directly against the female concept of power through social consensus. They are the primary means for an individual to stand up to the power of the group when the group has made a decision that negatively affects the individual.

I think that if we could track the advent of females in leadership in politics and the corporate world against the rise in anti-gun sentiment they would track pretty closely.

 

[ma96782]

It's currently fashionable to hate on guns and gun owners.

Certainly, IMHO an Un-American view. But, everyone's entitled to have an opinion, even when they're wrong.

Aloha, Mark

 

[ma96782]

There's a field of study called socio-biology. Socio-biology is the study of how genetics affect social behavior. E. O. Wilson was a main proponent of this field of study. He found that when it comes to human beings, the two sexes have very different schemes of social organization.

Males tend to establish a hierarchy of leadership, establish rules, and then negotiate exceptions to those rules. When the rules are violated it ultimately results in physical violence.

Females tend not to allow hierarchy and established leaders. Females operate by consensus. When a female gets too far ahead of the pack, or accumulates too much power she will be brought down, not through physical violence, but by concerted group social pressure. What is socially acceptable in a female group is fluid and depends on the momentary consensus.

All of this grows out of thousands of centuries of hunter-gatherer survival. Women cooperated and worked together as a group to harvest berries, fruit, etc, or to process game killed by their hunter male counterparts. Men hunted as a group, but with leaders who assigned tasks, and made plans. For men operating independently to carry out a group plan, their activities required previously agreed upon rules and a pretty rigid hierarchy of leadership.

We still operate by these social styles today. Women want to make decisions by consensus. They don't see a need for published rules if everyone can simply agree on what is the right thing to do in any particular situation. When women do operate by published rules they often can't understand when or why it's appropriate to reinterpret or break them. Hence, we have "zero tolerance" policies. Men want to choose leaders, publish rules, and then do their assigned tasks. Men are results oriented. If it makes sense to change or ignore a rule in order to accomplish a goal they will do so. Women are not goal oriented. They are process oriented. It doesn't matter so much where you end up as long as everyone was treated fairly along the way.

As women have migrated more and more into political and corporate leadership their preferred methods of operation have come with them. We see more and more decision making by consensus. When females deal with published rules we often see either a disregard for the rules altogether or a rigid "zero tolerance" policy in order to be "fair". When it comes to firearms, which have been an inherently male area of endeavor, they are seen by females as the single most problematic social authority issue. They are the symbol of male independent action and thought. They go directly against the female concept of power through social consensus. They are the primary means for an individual to stand up to the power of the group when the group has made a decision that negatively affects the individual.

I think that if we could track the advent of females in leadership in politics and the corporate world against the rise in anti-gun sentiment they would track pretty closely.

They VOTE too.

Aloha, Mark