View Full Version : What are Anti-gunners afraid of?
Are our fellow citizens who decry gun ownership really afraid of guns? Personally I think they are afraid of the empowerment that weapons represent. On some level they realize that ownership of personal firearms breaks down all class structures, truly makes all men equal and is the embodiment of freedom. I think what they are really of afraid of is their own shortcomings. They are predisposed to be unable to face fear and cannot function when their life is threatened. So they believe that to remove the threat would make life safer for them. What do you all think?
VooDoo6Actual
06-11-10, 14:25
Nothing paralyses more than fear itself...
Thoses types of people generally have an inaccurate ideological unpragmatic political views in addition to unrealistic ideology of human behavior and the species in general.
I find in working w/ these types of people Situational Awareness & GAS (general adaptation syndrome) is non existant in their understanding of history and the world.
Try to explain the Triune (three brains, Reptilian or R-Complex (paleomammalian complex) , Limpic (paleomammalian complex), Neocortex, (neomammalian complex)
to a libtard.
predator or prey ?
theblackknight
06-11-10, 14:50
Yes, they are literaly afraid of the gun itself.
and those shoulder things that go up.
Freedom and personal responsibility are usually what they fear most.
They are afraid of guns, but more in the sense that they fear they may have to personally deal with criminal threats by themselves one day.
They want to walk in a world where criminals are disarmed and the police take care of everything. It is a nice thought that is about as realistic as becoming a smurf.
It is often a combination of blind ideology, weakness of spirit, and a lack of true intellect.
PRGGodfather
06-11-10, 16:13
Their shadows.
EzGoingKev
06-11-10, 16:43
What are Anti-gunners afraid of?
Everything.
As soon as they get rid of guns they will just move onto something else.
parishioner
06-11-10, 16:55
They want to walk in a world where criminals are disarmed and the police take care of everything. It is a nice thought that is about as realistic as becoming a smurf.
Precisely.
They are in some way or another infatuated with the idea of a utopic society and fail to ever realize that it's unattainable. In the meantime, they try their best to implement ways to replicate the way the felt when they were children which includes safety, comfort and freedom from responsibility.
Read John Lennon's "Imagine" lyrics.
tracker722
06-11-10, 16:55
*************************
Are our fellow citizens who decry gun ownership really afraid of guns? Personally I think they are afraid of the empowerment that weapons represent. On some level they realize that ownership of personal firearms breaks down all class structures, truly makes all men equal and is the embodiment of freedom. I think what they are really of afraid of is their own shortcomings. They are predisposed to be unable to face fear and cannot function when their life is threatened. So they believe that to remove the threat would make life safer for them. What do you all think?
You can tell guns represent something else for people - and I suspect it probably varies person to person - by how irrational they get when the topic is discussed.
“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" - Sigmund Freud
Or something like that.:D
It is often a combination of blind ideology, weakness of spirit, and a lack of true intellect.
And some kind of disconnect from reality. I have a firearm for self defense for the same reason I wear my seatbelt, have a few fire extinguishers, wear a helmet, gloves, boots, jeans and leather jacket on my motorcycle, have a gas mask, locks on the doors and windows, I could probably go on for awhile. But when it comes to firearms, they've been brainwashed into thinking thier evil.
Precisely.
They are in some way or another infatuated with the idea of a utopic society and fail to ever realize that it's unattainable. In the meantime, they try their best to implement ways to replicate the way the felt when they were children which includes safety, comfort and freedom from responsibility.
Read John Lennon's "Imagine" lyrics.
It is attainable but only by the hand of God.
It is attainable but only by the hand of God.
If God didn't show up to fix things in 1945, he ain't coming. Sorry.
Precisely.
They are in some way or another infatuated with the idea of a utopic society and fail to ever realize that it's unattainable. In the meantime, they try their best to implement ways to replicate the way the felt when they were children which includes safety, comfort and freedom from responsibility.
Read John Lennon's "Imagine" lyrics.
That is rather astute.
Afraid of a number of things...
Most hardcore democrats I know are some of the biggest racist I know. I still recall one calling the guy they voted for a n#$#$. They feel blacks and people of other colors are inferior and need their help to survive in this world controlled by the superior whites.
Others are simply afraid because they can't understand how others have the self control not to shoot somebody they get in an argument with because they themselves don't have the restraint and think everyone thinks like they do, sociopaths.
Others just have zero life experience with guns other than what they see on tv and think they're only good for killing everyone in a room.
All in all people who fear guns are just F'n retarded, I know a few dems who own guns but think I shouldn't, because I live in an urban area :D.
GermanSynergy
06-11-10, 19:28
Not all anti gun types are "evil". Some of these folks have never been exposed to firearms, and have only the contrived, negative stereotypes of the media to fall back on. Taking them on a few range trips with a Ruger 10-22 or GSG5 and many of them are questioning their aversion to firearms and a few have purchased their own guns (thanks to me :D)
The more insidious anti gun types are the ones that feign concern for their fellow man, talk about making the streets safer, (inset worn out cliche here), etc. Their real goal is to ultimately have no privately owned weapons in non-govt hands, and grant more and more power to the state.
RogerinTPA
06-11-10, 19:35
Are our fellow citizens who decry gun ownership really afraid of guns? Personally I think they are afraid of the empowerment that weapons represent. On some level they realize that ownership of personal firearms breaks down all class structures, truly makes all men equal and is the embodiment of freedom. I think what they are really of afraid of is their own shortcomings. They are predisposed to be unable to face fear and cannot function when their life is threatened. So they believe that to remove the threat would make life safer for them. What do you all think?
Agreed....Yet they are usually the same people who will try to incite a violent encounter (throw shit, punch, kick, bite fingers off) at TEA party rallies or other conservative rallies and rally against AZ immigration laws....Then support doing nothing about boarder security, and unsustainable social programs, While advocating violence in the streets for "fundamental change":rolleyes:. **** em. Let them disarm.;)
Most hardcore democrats I know are some of the biggest racist I know. I still recall one calling the guy they voted for a n#$#$. They feel blacks and people of other colors are inferior and need their help to survive in this world controlled by the superior whites.
Others are simply afraid because they can't understand how others have the self control not to shoot somebody they get in an argument with because they themselves don't have the restraint and think everyone thinks like they do, sociopaths.
I can't tell you how many people I know like that.
People who don't believe they are racists but INSIST that blacks need special consideration and their assistance in order to be successful and productive.
And of course the..."I'm glad I didn't have a gun or I'd have killed somebody" crowd. Apparently they completely miss the fact that they are stating they have no control over themselves and are capable of murder but they find gun owners "dangerous."
If God didn't show up to fix things in 1945, he ain't coming. Sorry.
I'm not saying He is coming to fix things, just that He is the only one with the power to do so.
RogerinTPA
06-11-10, 19:49
Afraid of a number of things...
Most hardcore democrats I know are some of the biggest racist I know. I still recall one calling the guy they voted for a n#$#$. They feel blacks and people of other colors are inferior and need their help to survive in this world controlled by the superior whites.
Others are simply afraid because they can't understand how others have the self control not to shoot somebody they get in an argument with because they themselves don't have the restraint and think everyone thinks like they do, sociopaths.
Others just have zero life experience with guns other than what they see on tv and think they're only good for killing everyone in a room.
All in all people who fear guns are just F'n retarded, I know a few dems who own guns but think I shouldn't, because I live in an urban area :D.
Agreed, to include serious Democrats that are white, are racists anti-establishment, against conservative whites as well, in some instances, even more so (many Hollywood types, Sean Penn, Janeane Garofalo, Rosie O'Donnell, Alec Baldwin, etc...).
I'm not saying He is coming to fix things, just that He is the only one with the power to do so.
That's a quitter attitude, our country was founded on beating overwhelming odds.
Are our fellow citizens who decry gun ownership really afraid of guns? What do you all think?
I think the answer is very different when it comes to men VS women. As an example, my wife was very intimidated by firearms due to her own ignorance growing up on an upstate NY dairy fairm. The only weapon owned on their farm was a .22 rifle and there was zero crime in the neighboring town. Her feelings prior to us getting to know one another was why should anyone need a gun? This attitude and way of thinking was instilled in her due to the environment she lived in. I often tease her about her naivety and that the real world isn't quite as nice as where she was raised.
She was not scared that I owned guns, and is now comfortable with them, but she was fearful prior to not knowing the basics concerning proper handling due to realizing that firearms are inherently dangerous. Her thought process and way of thinking about guns and the 2nd Amendment in general are vastly different than we first met and I credit this to open, honest discussion about the realities of what happens around us. She now carries and is comfortable with having weapons around her and will at the least have one beside her when watching TV in our home.
I think that trying to help educate more non-gun people through taking them shooting and helping them enjoy the sport of shooting prior to any self defense talk helps as well. I often relate it to throwing darts, shooting pool or common sports that they can associate hand eye coordination and skill to. After they know the safety rules and are more comforable with a weapon then I think it's a better time to open up discussion about self defense as they tend to be more open minded.
I too have often used the seatbelt, insurance, fire extinguisher, etc. to relate to people who don't understand why someone would make the decision to carry a firearm. Sorry for the rant but just bitching about the topic without offering any solutions seems like a waste of time to me. Have a good weekend everyone and take a newbie shooting! :)
I'm not saying He is coming to fix things, just that He is the only one with the power to do so.
Well in case he don't show to the party, rather than wait for "heaven on Earth" we are best advised to do the best we can in the meantime and that means realize the world can be a dangerous place we might have to deal with ourselves.
Btw, I am not suggesting you are unaware of or disagree with the last part. I suspect you wouldn't be here if you believed otherwise and was merely stating the obvious to express a point.
That's a quitter attitude, our country was founded on beating overwhelming odds.
I think you misunderstand his statement.
Like you, I believe only "we" can make things better. And we will continue to do so as always.
But Caeser25 was discussing a "perfect world" and I don't think that is ever possible. And he is correct that only a supernatural force (which I personally don't believe exists) could create such perfection (which I personally don't believe is possible).
I think you misunderstand his statement.
Like you, I believe only "we" can make things better. And we will continue to do so as always.
But Caeser25 was discussing a "perfect world" and I don't think that is ever possible. And he is correct that only a supernatural force (which I personally don't believe exists) could create such perfection (which I personally don't believe is possible).
Well if everyone died but the people I like, and if they liked the people I liked and only the friendliest of herbivores survived... Well that would be perfectly fine by me.
Okay I missed the point :D
I would say that there are at least four categories of classification:
1. Uneducated/Afraid: Possess an irrational fear of guns, due to lack of knowledge/experience. I could liken this to the person that claims a small garter snake is venemous and was trying to attack them, they don't know the facts and act out of fear. Please take care with these folks, as many can be educated and even become strong proponents for gun rights once fully charged. Talk some sense to them before they convert to #3.
2. Socialites/Hollywood Elite: Are so out of touch with reality, that they do not have to consider defending themselves (they pay men to do it for them). Unfortunately being left is hip now, and they will live in their dreamland for quite a while. Danger: For some reason they think their opinions are relevent, and sadly many normal people do also.
3. Die hard activists, and their followers: These people may wish to irrationally seek closure on a tragedy in their life (family member killed in shooting, etc.) or just need to fill a void by standing for a (any) cause. 100% emotion, and most likely cannot be reasoned with. Dangerous in numbers.
4. Solialist Politicians: These people realise the real implications of banning gun ownership, and this is their motive (see UK). Not a laughing matter.
Counter revolution.
It's sort of like the ending of a Scooby Doo episode, only the person behind the mask gets hanged from a light post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956
Very few anti-gunners believe in disarmament for themselves or the state police forces who's sole job is keeping people like you in check. Counter revolution is the closest thing to a bolshevik version of hell.
Why do you think they level so much hate to the least effective combat firearm ever made, the pistol?
You can tell guns represent something else for people - and I suspect it probably varies person to person - by how irrational they get when the topic is discussed.
“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" - Sigmund Freud
Or something like that.:D
Libs like to say religion is the opiate of the masses. I say utopia is the opiate of liberals.
I don't think it is fear at all. Look around you, note what the libs are doing. They are trying to achieve social justice / UTOPIA. There is no need/room for guns in utopia.
By wanting to own guns, in particular for self defense, we remind them (like a slap in the face) that they are not even close to achieving social justice and their version of utopia despite trying since the days of president Wilson and the Great Society of 1964.
Nathan_Bell
06-12-10, 08:48
Recall that many of the anti-gunners are city dwellers, this gives several openings for their indoctrination of guns being evil.
1. Ignorance. Unless they want to find something out about guns, they are never exposed to them as those of us who grew up in rural or small town settings. Their only exposure has been through entertainment, indoctrination at their schools, police, and if unlucky in the hands of a criminal. None of these will give a person an open mind to gun ownership.
2. Effectiveness of laws and regulations that did help safety. Living in a city a hundred years ago was not a real safe environment. You could get killed, maimed, etc at nearly any point of your day. Look at the old newspapers from NYC, SF, and Philly to see the death rolls from those days. The laws were changed and most of these deaths were eliminated. So for these folks rules=safety.
3. Primary threat are other people. This grew from the success of point two. Now that most city dwellers no longer have to worry about being killed in an elevator, fire, subway, or run away meat grinder; the main way for an "untimely death" or injury is by the hands of another person ignoring the fact that the threat is the person, not the gun, hammer, knife, or mechanical pencil in their hand. In their coddled mindset they believe that removing the legality of an item will end its existence and its threat to their security.
4. Their own mental issues. How many anti-gunners, of the non-rabid variety, have you spoken to that will respond "I don't know if I could trust myself with a gun" If your are so fearful of your own behavior when given a gun, what does that say about ones mental situation? Are these folks really so afraid that they will go postal, or is it that they are piss-scared of any responsibility?
5. Dipshit introductions to firearms. These folks have all of the above baggage, but manage to get talked into shooting a "real" gun. This shows a real strength of character to go against their herd mentality. Sadly their cousin decides to be a tool and has the first gun that they shoot be a single barrel 12ga or a snubbie 357 without earplugs. That will drive them right back into the herd with scary stories to tell, anytime guns are brought up, about how all gun owners must be mentally imbalanced masochists who like to be beaten and have their hearing damaged.
Moose-Knuckle
06-12-10, 09:42
There are two kinds of "Anti's" in the world.
Sigmund Freud described the average soccer mom, limp wrist, metro sexual, etc when he said. “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
The other kind consisting of the elitist politicians, celebrities, etc don't want us to have a means to protect ourselves from their tyranny.
Libs like to say religion is the opiate of the masses.
I don't know if Marx would be considered a Liberal by today use of the term, but the full quote:
"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." -Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
I don't think it is fear at all.
You may have read this, but I always liked this chicks take:
The anti-gun male
By Julia Gorin
LET'S be honest. He's scared of the thing. That's understandable--so am I. But as a girl I have the luxury of being able to admit it. I don't have to masquerade squeamishness as grand principle-in the interest of mankind, no less.
A man does. He has to say things like "One Taniqua Hall is one too many," as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing with his uncle's gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem.
He often accuses men with guns of "compensating for something." The truth is quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel knowing there are men out there who aren't intimidated by the big bad inanimate villain? How is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys who have used the family gun effectively in defending the family from an armed intruder? So if he can't touch a gun, he doesn't want other men to be able to either. And to achieve his ends, he'll use the only weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law.
Of course, sexual and psychological insecurities don't account for ALL men against guns. Certainly there must be some whose motives are pure, who perhaps do care so much as to tirelessly look for policy solutions to teenage void and aggressiveness, and to parent and teacher negligence. But for a potentially large underlying contributor, psycho-sexual inadequacy has gone unexplored and unacknowledged. It's one thing to not be comfortable with a firearm and therefore opt to not keep or bear one. But it's another to impose the same handicap onto others.
People are suspicious of what they do not know-and not only does this man not know how to use a gun, he doesn't know the men who do, or the number of people who have successfully used one to defend themselves from injury or death. But he is better left in the dark; his life is hard enough knowing there are men out there who don't sit cross-legged. That they're able to handle a firearm instead of being handled by it would be too much to bear.
Such a man is also best kept huddled in urban centers, where he feels safer than he might if thrown out on his own into a rural setting, in an isolated house on a quiet street where he would feel naked and helpless. Lacking the confidence that would permit him to be sequestered in sparseness, and lacking a gun, he finds comfort in the cloister of crowds.
The very ownership of a gun for defense of home and family implies some assertiveness and a certain self-reliance. But if our man kept a gun in the house, and an intruder broke in and started attacking his wife in front of him, he wouldn't be able to later say, "He had a knife--there was nothing I could do!" Passively watching in horror while already trying to make peace with the violent act, scheduling a therapy session and forgiving the perpetrator before the attack is even finished wouldn't be the option it otherwise is.
No. Better to emasculate all men. Because let's face it: He's a lover, not a fighter. And he doesn't want to get shot in case he has an affair with your wife.
Of course, it wouldn't be completely honest not to admit that owning a firearm carries with it some risk to unintended targets. That's the tradeoff with a gun: The right to defend one's life and way of life isn't without peril to oneself. And the last thing this man wants to do is risk his life-if even to save it. For he is guided by a dread fear for his life, and has more confidence in almost anyone else's ability to protect him than his own, preferring to place himself at the mercy of the villain or in the sporadically competent hands of authorities (his line of defense consisting of locks, alarm systems, reasoning with the attacker, calling the police or, should fighting back occur to him, thrashing a heavy vase).
In short, he is a man begging for subjugation. He longs for its promise of equality in helplessness. Because only when that strange, independent alpha breed of male is helpless along with him will he feel adequate. Indeed, his freedom lies in this other man's containment.
Source:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin030802.asp
There are two kinds of "Anti's" in the world.
Sigmund Freud described the average soccer mom, limp wrist, metro sexual, etc when he said. “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
The other kind consisting of the elitist politicians, celebrities, etc don't want us to have a means to protect ourselves from their tyranny.
Be careful with that quote - the evidence suggests Freud never said it. A hard-core anti will throw it back into your face and ridicule you for using it.
Moose-Knuckle
06-12-10, 10:27
Be careful with that quote - the evidence suggests Freud never said it. A hard-core anti will throw it back into your face and ridicule you for using it.
Hmm first I have heard of this, I don't know the work that sites the particualr quotation in question. I got it from a quote site index.
He's right. Though if you really want to mess with an Anti- cite the correct author and watch them squirm. Don B. Kates, Jr is the author http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Kates IMHO Don Kates is a more reputable person to talk on the issue than Frued.
Moose-Knuckle
06-12-10, 11:20
He's right. Though if you really want to mess with an Anti- cite the correct author and watch them squirm. Don B. Kates, Jr is the author http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Kates IMHO Don Kates is a more reputable person to talk on the issue than Frued.
Thanks for the link, I never knew that it was his quote. Wonder why so many attribute that to Freud. :confused:
Kates was talking about or referencing Frued in the passage the quote was from. I think some misunderstood it to be Kates quoting Frued & ran with it. With Frued being the more well known name outside the field of criminology . . . . at any rate, there are a lot of silk screeners who've printed the T-Shirt citing the wrong author & now it is legend. On the one hand, you have a drug addicted sexually fixated & mostly discredited psychiatrist and on the other you have a reputable criminologist and author. The actual author hurts the liberal worse, in part because they have no idea how to refute him.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.