We all know the arguments used against us, and how those arguments do not stand up under scrutiny to the logical mine.  But I always am amazed at how the antis continue to plod on, fighting their self-rightous war against us.  Now I know some of them, especially the leaders, have a nefarious agenda behind their rants, but many followers (baaaah, baaaah) really believe the drivel their leaders spew forth.  Logic has no affect as they really, honestly believe the evil in people's actions is being caused by the weapon, and not the individual.  Over the last week I have heard repeated on many different news networks, and again last night by Chief Moose's wife, "at least that gun is off the streets..."  What the hell does that mean?  Then once again it occured to me how their logic works; they really do see an inantimate object, such as the "black rifle," as being the source of the violence, and not merely the tool mis-used to deliver the violence of a sick mind.  So if you will forgive my rambling, I guess this is the way they honestly see the AR-15  http://www.angelfire.com/gu/biggbore/How_Antis_see_Black_Rifles_small.jpg

I think you have answered your own question... when someone is just so absolutely CONSUMED by their hatred of something, logic takes a back seat.  They ignore factual information, as well as common sense, favoring instead to load their arguments with purely emotional rhetoric.

As soon as an attempt is made to counter these statements with logic and fact, the debate quickly degernates to name calling.

Bottom line... for some people, logic cannot compete with hatred or fear.

--Mike

It is demonstrably impossible to reason with a rutabaga...

Look where alot of 'em are located--New York, Washington, DC, Los Angeles...They're surrounded by their own kind so any kind of anti-gun remark gets immediate support.

It's a giant exercise in "group think" mentality.

Liberals, Anti-gunners, whatever you want to call them, as some of you have said, function on feelings, void of logic or reason. It makes them "feel" good to do certain things, rightious or not. They avoid real confrontation, if you pair off with them, they get scared and frustrated and resort to name calling. Guns don't fight back, so they go after them instead. Thier actions are ONLY and SPECIFICALLY to make themselves "FEEL" better. Like they have made a difference without really doing anything. unfortunalty, thier actions always make things much worse. Honor does not exist in these people. It is truly an obnoxious way of thinking, they think they know better than we do on how to "live", so they impose thier will on others instead of doing what is right.

It's one of many cases of people arguing against something they know almost nothing about.  It's amazing that these people who are fighting for these things have taken essentially no time to learn about their "enemy."  

Of course that's only one half of it, the other half is the politically motivated side.  I don't think anyone is "targeting" the 2nd Amendment, it's more a case of using an issue to get votes.  Politicians know very well that dealing with "the watered-down masses" is like dealing with children.  You go up to a group of people, show them a picture of an AR-15 and say "look at this thing, just look at how scary it is!" and they nod their heads "aha" and then you say "wouldn't you like it if nobody had any of these?" and they nod their heads "yes!" and then you say "well then, vote for me!"  

It's about praying upon people's limited understanding of something in order to get their enthusiasm.  Unfortunately you can't do much about it, seeing as how you can't realistically expect everyone to go and learn all they can about everything they vote on.  

My two cents

Keep in mind that your comment about not understanding 'logical arguments' applies to what you see as logical but what someone else might not.  Their passion is just as viable as yours even if you don't agree.

One of the joys of Freedom of Speech is the right we have to disagree.  One persons interpretation of things is often times different from anothers.

To illustrate the point, and at the risk of really stepping in it, I'll try and illustrate the point.

First things first.  I'm a long time gun owner, including two AR15s at present and one other in the past.  

That being said,  I am not one who would use the 2nd ammendment as my argument for the right to own a gun.  

Now I'm sure I've gotten all kinds of folks dander up, but if you read on, I'll tell you my interpretation, which is just that...my interpretation, carrying no more or no less weight then yours.

The 2nd ammendment states in full:  

"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING
NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A
FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE
PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."


More often then not, only the last half is seen in print.  When I started digging for myself to try and understand the arguement, I saw the complete ammendment.  That made me wonder about the first part "A well regulated Militia".  What did that mean.

Some more digging through the Constitution.  And there in Article I detailing the powers of the Congress was something that caught my eye. In describing the responsibilities of the Congress it mentions:

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

There was that word Militia.  It seems to me to be a reference to an armed force in each state, ala what we now know as the National Guard.  The Feds were responsible to set up the rules and provide the materials if neccesary, but control was left to the states in providing the leadership on a state level.

The founding fathers were fearful of an all powerful federal government.  To that end they wanted each state to have it's own militia both to help in Federal emergencies, and to protect itself from the unlikely threat of a Federal government attempted takeover.

So my interpretation in terms of any gun laws is that it is not something the Federal Government can decide, but that should my State decide to regulate guns, it's within it's power.

You could also argue that in the extreme, the Feds should have to provide guns to all of us, with the understanding that we then are subject to the rules and regulations of the military, under leadership provided by each home state and available for service on a local and federal level should a crisis arise.

Now that's my logical look at the 2nd Ammendment based on my interpretation of American history and my study of the Constitution.

Does that mean I'm right and everyone has to agree with me?  Nope.  But that's my opinion.

Bottom line is that part of living in this great country is knowing that folks will disagree.  It's also respecting their right to their opinion and fighting for their right to have that opinion just like they should fight for your right to have yours.

Also keep in mind that anytime something like this happens with a gun, the best sound bites are the ones that get folks emotions going, hence the extreme anti-gun quotes which get the heated response.

It happens after plane crashes, buildings burning down, car wrecks, ship sinkings etc.  The cry immediately goes out to 'fix" or 'regulate' safety by applying some new law to each instance.  And more often then not, it's human error as the cause.

"planes don't kill people, pilot error does"  

Sound familiar?

I don't expect that I'll have to give up my ARs.  And I'd bet the AW ban will pass into history when its up.  It didn't really have any teeth to it anyway, unless you really like bayonet lugs and flash hiders.  My post ban AR is clearly a better weapon then the Pre-Ban Colt SP1 I had 20 years ago.  

So relax, tune out the unwanted anti-gun noise and enjoy your shooting hobby.  I know I sure do.

Dan

BTW, "they" are part of us.  Liberty, ain't it great :)

Your argument does have some merit, however I do believe it's flawed.  As an example, the National Guard is a Federally funded and controled entity.  The financing, approvals, etc does not go through the state.  Agreed the majority of the activations have been done at a state level to help with natural disasters and so on, the Guard has been and is still being called up on a federal level such as what we've seen in the Airports as of late and even some units being deployed overseas.

Now with that out of the way, I would like to share my interpretation of the 2nd amendment.  The right to bear arms is given to The People, it's stated planly, no gimicks and no room for interpretation.  Reason for this is not just to protect yourself against a possible tyranical government, but we, The People, ARE the militia.  Agreed we aren't overly well regulated or formally trained, but our forefathers knew that in order to maintain our sovereignty, every citizen of the United States of America has the right, and obligation as a citizen, to protect our country or even just our personal property from any invading force.  That invading force could be as simple as a burglar breaking in your front door or a foreign nation storming the Eastern Seaboard.

I respect your point of view, but if we just sit back and relax and wait for the AW ban to pass off into history, what would stop them from passing something much stronger in it's place?  To be honest, I never thought the first one would pass...who knows what the next one will restrict, just look at what California is restricted to and if you don't think the anti-gunners wouldn't love to see that type of restriction go to the federal level, you're nuts.

I've done my part...I have signed letters from my senators stating how they support the 2nd amendment rights of all citizens.  Do any of you have yours?

That's my 2 cents worth.  

Guppy223, I'm not an expert on the Constitution or the other documents that preceded it or the working papers from the Constitutional Convention, so my opinion is also just that.  I would say that the Founding Fathers just assumed you would provide your own weapons when you reported to the militia, as was done then.  Some things were probably not explained, as they were just assumed in the context of the day.

I would say about antis and why you cannot argue with them - it isn't about guns, it's about trading your liberty for the illusion of safety.  I fear the majority of my fellow citizens would trade almost anything for this illusion.  It is a product of a secular, hedonistic society that values nothing above bare existence.

Big-Bore,

Guppy223 is full of it.

God have us Antis for live-fire exercises......
when we've finally said it is time to violently reinstate the Constitution of the United States as our form of government.

Dave S

You must remember that the antis really don't care about guns.  They are liberals, and liberals ==HATE== individualism.  To liberals, all guns, but handguns in particular, stand as a hated symbol of self reliance and individualism, the two things that liberals despise most bitterly.

Why can't you reason with an anti-gun liberal?  Well, why can't you reason with a bigotted racist, a fundamentalist muslim, or a wacko environmentalist?

You can't inject light into a closed mind.

Thoughts on the anti's

Having not grown up or lived much inside the super congested areas like N.Y. and L.A.., although I lived in L.A. for a short time and have visited most of the largest cities, I noted the following:

People in general(a great generalization but accurate I think) in these highly compacted environments by and whole are a very fearful group.... paranoia comes to mind.  Many of them live in fear of anyone they don't know and few seem to have much inner strength.  They feel totally at the mercy of law enforcement for protection, and the idea that others may possess a GUN is simply frightening, especially considering that they tend to trust few others than those in their immediate circles.
People like we gun owners are exceptions to the rule however since some of those gun possessors do go nuts and or use them in a crime, we just get lumped in togther and it's about that simple. Reducing the availability of something one can hurt people with, just makes sense to these people.....

Until these people are more self assured in general and feel safe and possibly in control control of their lives, I don't think it will change to any appreciable degree.....but since they vote....you had better be voting also

Paul Prochko

To understand why a segment of our society is against firearms...we have to understand what they are afraid of. The are afraid of their own shadow. "The are afraid of free-thinkers, self-reliant patriotic citizens. The are afraid of that which they do not understand." Jason Baker, Valley, Alabama.

As for the Constitution and the Second Amendment, to understand the language therein, we must read what the founding fathers wrote in response to the words they used. "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few elected officials... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason).

MountaineerWV

I had a conversation with a Canadian the other day.   I asked him why Detroit was so different from Windsor.  His reply, "the culture and the guns."  I did not debate him; I let him talk.  When he was done, I agreed with his logic of zero guns equal zero gun deaths.  (From a classical standpoint he is correct just like if you had no heart you could not get heart disease).  My reply was as follows:

A littler over one hundred and fifty years ago it was legal for some people to own other people in this country.  It was the law of the land.  To change the practice one group used guns against another group.  Who is to say things could not go back to those days and if they did; wouldn't you want to be able to defend yourself?  He said he could not see it happen and I had to press him.  I maintained my point and eventually he agreed, "yes he would".  I have never lost an argument with this one.

Simple....Ignorance.

I'm not saying these ANTIS are dumb people, just uninformed. My wife was an ANTI till I taught her how to shoot (on the evil Black Rifle ...Olympic by the way) and now she understands that it is just a tool, like a hammer....just more fun.

More Pro-Shooting events will help. Hell, my dad tells me stories of when they used to have shooting class during gym in high school in the 50's. They would bring their own rifles in, no problems ever!!

By the way....I am Guppysponge...Not guppy223, please do not confuse us.

there are 2 kinds of socialists; the extremely evil and the extremely stupid.

the evil type knows their agenda is wrong and their ideas ridiculous. all they want is the ability to make govt all-powerful and make others kowtow to them. they were the types in high school whom the other kids looked down upon and teased/hazed. they've spent their lives in a quest to get even with anyone who disagrees with them or makes them look foolish.

the stupid type are, well... stupid. they follow and empower the evil types because the evil types bribe them with public money (welfare, do-nothing govt jobs, misc money give-away programs, etc, ad nauseum...) and because they lack the ability to think critically. instead of thinking, they emotionalize everything because they can't be proven wrong. ALL emotions are equally valid just as all thinking is not equally valid.

you can try to make it more complicated than this but it isn't.

There is not enough room on this board, but on many others I use the following signature - '"A gun in the hands of a free man frightens and angers the autocrat, not because he fears the power of the gun, but, rather, the spirit of the man who holds it." -Unknown'  This is what the anti's are afraid of...us.  They are afraid we will not follow the herd.  And with firearms, we won't have to.  But without them, we will follow or die.

And by the way, the Bill of Rights defines not what we can do, but rather what the government must leave alone.  These are not "granted" to us.  If so, they can be taken away.  It defines what the government cannot do - usurp these rights.