Do you think the anti-gun group fights amongst themselves?

[Firefighterchen]

The longer I have been a member here, and posted my thoughts and opinions, the more I realize that 99% of my views are inline with the majority of the rest of the gun world. Even those that I have banged my head against (B2, Desert, BC, a few others)...I still agree with them 99% of the time outside the 1% that caused the insulting debate. While the insulting debates make up such a small percentage of the topics, they seem to gain the most attention.

I have been wondering this for a while...but after reading, probably the most concentrated 6 pages of insulting to date for me, the thread "Will he carry 1 in the chamber NOW??", it made me post this, do anti-gunners argue over certain topics? Do you guys believe there is as much civil war between them as there is between us?

Do you think they argue over whether guns should be allowed at all vs allowed for hunting/competition? Arguing over if police should or shouldn't also carry a gun? I know it would be hard for any of us to know exactly what they talk about amongst themselves, but if anyone ever was in that group, do they insult each other over 1% of the whole picture?

 

[Unfettered Might]

The real problem lies in many peoples inherent nature to want to control everyone else. Its all about what they think is right and not about the other persons right to decide whats right for them. Far too many have lost sight of the concept of LIBERTY.

Theyll want to argue their position on why theyre right, completely oblivious that their argument is fundamentally flawed before theyve ever started it.

Its as simple as remembering the golden rule.

You can take anyone and I mean ANYONE, that wants to tromp on someone elses liberties, but as soon as you try to take away one of theirs, theyd be up in arms over the travesty, COMPLETELY oblivious to the fact that they themselves have been just as guilty.

Bottom line, theres a ton of these types in the antigun crowd, hell all of them. Sadly, there are far too many of these hypocrites in our own ranks.

Personally, i welcome neither their company nor council.

 

[Flanmedic51]

The longer I have been a member here, and posted my thoughts and opinions, the more I realize that 99% of my views are inline with the majority of the rest of the gun world. Even those that I have banged my head against (B2, Desert, BC, a few others)...I still agree with them 99% of the time outside the 1% that caused the insulting debate. While the insulting debates make up such a small percentage of the topics, they seem to gain the most attention.

I have been wondering this for a while...but after reading, probably the most concentrated 6 pages of insulting to date for me, the thread "Will he carry 1 in the chamber NOW??", it made me post this, do anti-gunners argue over certain topics? Do you guys believe there is as much civil war between them as there is between us?

Do you think they argue over whether guns should be allowed at all vs allowed for hunting/competition? Arguing over if police should or shouldn't also carry a gun? I know it would be hard for any of us to know exactly what they talk about amongst themselves, but if anyone ever was in that group, do they insult each other over 1% of the whole picture?

I think it's the nature of the beast. The beast being a conservative and VERY male mindset whereas everyone has a certain lust--if you will-- to pipe in their 2 cents and want to exhibit their knowledge (or lack thereof) of the topic. PLUS the ability to hide behind a username with no accountability, which obviously is the case in any blogging or social site. I've had many disagreements that I thought the conversation had otherwise gone well until a condescending remark surfaces because someone becomes horribly defensive or really has nothing else good to say and comes up with a slam. And as informal as these sites are, its sometimes hard to detect one's mood and/or affect in their writing.

As far as the anti gunners? I'm sure there are disagreements such as on here where there are hard lined and moderate conservatives alike. As you mentioned in the '1 in the Chamber' thread, I would have assumed everyone would have had the same thoughts and it would have been a docile conversation...but what the hell happened on that one? I like to look for purposeful conversations...whether I agree or not with others. But civility speaks much louder and holds much more credibility amongst the users in this forum. FFC...I know we don't always agree on some topics but you've always been thought provoking at least and I think that is what this is all about.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Despite their vaunted "conflict resolution protocols", I'm sure Leftists, of which gun-grabbers are only one subspecies, have no clue what real conflict is about, something that anyone who has ever had their gun-nut senses tingle and the question cross their minds, "Am I gonna need to draw my personal-protection sidearm in this situation?" knows intimately. As such, I'm sure those debating societies they call community organizations and civil action committees are either awash in concensus because no one dares broach the idea that they are of a different opinion than the apparent opinion of the collective, or else continual screaming and shouting matches that they don't consider to be conflicts, but merely debate and discussion.

A personal protection sidearm — The ultimate conflict resolution protocol.

 

[snatale42]

Most likely, many Anti's aren't anti "gun" their anti "Handgun" While the real nuts are anti anything that looks like a gun. In my home state of MA we have a couple different permits you can apply for, the lowest of them being FID (rifles/shotguns). FID cards are SHALL issue. This is in a pretty anti state. So they obviously son't see them a too much of a threat. While LTC's (License to Carry) is MAY issue. Even with that said the others would probably like the cops not to have guns. I'm sure without question the have there own little stupid wars between them which is good, at least were not the only ones there pissing off.

 

[walt629]

Good question. Short answer is "yes!". Any time you get more than 3 people together, there will be disagreement on some portion of some topic of debate. Like you said, Chen, we agree a majority of the time but there will ALWAYS be a variable that will be encountered that everyone does not see eye to eye on. And when your talking about Alpha and Beta personalities clashing, neither one is willing to give up their stand point, so yes there will be arguments.

It's the intellectual integrity of the participants that will determine just how nasty the argument gets.

With the anti's, I have to believe it is the same. There are more than one faction of anti's out there. There are as many that are so far to the "disarm everyone" side of the argument as we have "everyone must carry a gun" on our side of the argument. I suspect that when the moderate and the extreme clash, the aftermath must be as bad as or worse than what we see on this side of the argument.

But just because they argue about how to take away the rights of the American people. made no mistake. They ARE still doing everything they can to take away your rights.

Stay vigilant!

 

[santa]

The pro-gun AND the anti-gun people have so many differences of beliefs it reminds me of religious demoninations. And Im an ordained minister! But while most of us know the pro-gun groups, how many of us know who the anti-gun groups are ? (aside from the Brady Bunch) ?

 

[SR40c]

People who think freely will usually have more disagreements. Robots on the other hand, will not. They are programmed to walk in lockstep with their controllers.

 

[Tucker's Mom]

....Do you think they argue over whether guns should be allowed at all vs allowed for hunting/competition? Arguing over if police should or shouldn't also carry a gun? I know it would be hard for any of us to know exactly what they talk about amongst themselves, but if anyone ever was in that group, do they insult each other over 1% of the whole picture?

Of course they argue too...but in ways about how to get rid of guns from the citizenry via more imposition of rights...vote them all in and we're royally screwed.:frown:

 

[Bob in Bristol]

They never fight among themselves. They come here and stir the pot.

 

[Tucker's Mom]

They never fight among themselves. They come here and stir the pot.

Now why didn't I think of that before...??? It is so simple!