Truth, Why Antis Hate Gun Owners.

[coastt1jim]

Truth, Why Antis Hate Gun Owners.

So if you take away theories of government takeovers, Socialist agendas, and invasions of personal rights what's left to create such hostility.
The reality is, gun owners have the simplest ability to exercise a constitutional right. Many of the rights that are granted in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, require detailed actions on the person wishing to exercise a particular subject, located in these documents. Why the First Amendment does guarantee certain expressions, those expressions are not automatically interpreted as an exercise of that constitutional right. However citizens in this country have the ability to simply create an object or purchase one. And they have already guaranteed the ability of exercising a right. And firearms owners do so really never having to fully exercise that right. The right to bear arms, can simply be translated in the ability of one person to use a firearm. However simply having that ownership alone automatically grants you your second right. Tada !!

It is why the simplicity of the Second Amendment is challenged by many others. Those who wish to change laws, interpret actions of constitutional rights, have a huge challenge ahead of themselves to work on the object and the possession of that objects being viable. When all other constitutional rights take much more involvement to accomplish. Our First Amendment right does give those several options, but to make those viable it takes more than simply uttering words to crowd to make a difference to show that you've exercised that First Amendment rights. However a simple purchase automatically grants that person the ability to have that firearm in their possession.
It is with this simple possession of a firearm, the animosity is created. Human nature dictates that others want what they cannot have. Why yes the anti-gun crowd could simply possess a firearm exercise their right and understand how easy it is. However they have been taught to have fear, not knowledge. Have you ever looked at the amount of anger that is generated by all ages within the anti-gun crowd? Yes, some of this is milled to create a response. But it cannot simply be all persons in this vast amount unless there is a reason. And that reason is you and I exercise our freedom so easily. That this challenges others and feeling uncomfortable with the fact that we enjoy our freedom so easily. When they have to fight much harder for other rights, that are not exercised so simply.

In closing, of course there are many other aspects such as school training, the media, and many other aspects that add to the animosity that you and I share as firearm owners. But the reality is there's only one thing different between what we have and what they have. And that is exercising a right that is easily attained. You may call it jealousy, or uneducated views. But the reality is they want what we have, and they want it attained as simple as we do. But they find that there's much due diligence involved, in guaranteeing other constitutional rights. As we see generation after generation becoming more lazy, their ability to effect change no longer is done by respectfully disagreeing. Its now done by riots and hate.

This is simply my opinion, when looking at the huge amount of hatred towards gun owners. That alone is still not enough to have the masses reject the Second Amendment so openly.
If you ever sat and wondered why anyone would want you to exercise your rights?
This is my take why as its been so long coming, long before media power and social media, and shows clear they simply want their own desired rights attained as easily.

DH.

 

[coastt1jim]

I'd like to point out, the Constitution did not grant any right. Our rights came from God, we were born with them. The Constitution was created to protect those rights.
Thank you

 

[Ruger Rich]

"Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits. Fanatics will never learn that, though it be written in letters of gold across the sky. It is the prohibition that makes anything precious." — Mark Twain

There as many ways to pursue happiness as there are people in this country. And as long as they are not harming another citizen, more power to them, even if I may or may not understand their reasoning. The nation loses its way when there is a drive to end a freedom via state coercion. Sadly, for so many, there isn't even a second thought about using the law to bludgeon others into how they think they should live.

Very well spoken.

 

[Pete F]

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.

I hope that everyone sees this as a broad generalization. It does have some basis in reality for many cultures.

 

[Pete F]

Unfortunately for us gun owners, there are many examples that enforce the anti-gun sentiment - mass shootings for one. Many buy into the banning of guns as a way to further control their environment. They are the ones that prefer to be told what to do rather than think for themselves. They are slaves to the government.

They allow a couple of bad actors to determine our fate.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

The progressive argument is that the collective welfare is more important than individual rights:

"The notion of collective rights is wholly the invention of the Progressive founders of the administrative state, who were engaged in a self-conscious effort to supplant the principles of limited government embodied in the Constitution. For these Progressives, what Madison and other Founders called the "rights of human nature" were merely a delusion characteristic of the 18th century. Science, they held, has proven that there is no permanent human nature—that there are only evolving social conditions. As a result, they regarded what the Founders called the "rights of human nature" as an enemy of collective welfare, which should always take precedence over the rights of individuals. For Progressives then and now, the welfare of the people—not liberty—is the primary object of government, and government should always be in the hands of experts. This is the real origin of today's gun control hysteria—the idea that professional police forces and the military have rendered the armed citizen superfluous; that no individual should be responsible for the defense of himself and his family, but should leave it to the experts. The idea of individual responsibilities, along with that of individual rights, is in fact incompatible with the Progressive vision of the common welfare."

But oddly, when it suits their purposes the progressive argument turns itself on its head:

"The shooters in Arizona, Colorado, and Newtown were mentally ill persons who, by all accounts, should have been incarcerated. Even the Los Angeles Times admits that "there is a connection between mental illness and mass murder." But the same progressives who advocate gun control also oppose the involuntary incarceration of mentally ill people who, in the case of these mass shootings, posed obvious dangers to society before they committed their horrendous acts of violence. From the point of view of the progressives who oppose involuntary incarceration of the mentally ill—you can thank the ACLU and like-minded organizations—it is better to disarm the entire population, and deprive them of their constitutional freedoms, than to incarcerate a few mentally ill persons who are prone to engage in violent crimes."

The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles