Why do they hate us so much?

BradyWarrior · Apr 9, 2016

Hate?

I don't think it's hate. Gun control is politically popular with enough Marylanders that it makes it worthwhile to support. In some places, like MoCo, gun control is wildly popular. The residents there do have a strong dislike of guns for the most part.

Then you have some "true believers", guys like Brian Frosh who think they are doing the right thing. In his mind, he is saving lives.

Guns have over the last 10 years become a totem of the political right. Much like abortion to the left. It's just politics, nothing personal.

Vile Shadow · Apr 9, 2016

W2D said:
Sadly, I'd say the police are in this same bucket. They would prefer that they are the only ones with the guns, so it's easier to identify the bad guys. They just don't realize that WE ARE ON THEIR SIDE, but don't want to wait for them to show up.

Some cops may feel that way, but there are quite a few among us right here who would disagree with that statement.

rbird7282 · Apr 9, 2016

W2D said:
Sadly, I'd say the police are in this same bucket. They would prefer that they are the only ones with the guns, so it's easier to identify the bad guys. They just don't realize that WE ARE ON THEIR SIDE, but don't want to wait for them to show up.

********. There are many police who are ardent 2A supporters and gladly support the right of citizens to carry.

cmartin · Apr 9, 2016

Liberals learned a long time ago that if they "Frame" the argument and dialogue that they can win. We need to learn that . To that end , I propose that we begin labeling Anti Gunners as those that dislike "Hate" the poor, aged, women, LGBT, any minority group based on ethnicity, etc. These are the ones that certainly benefit the most from the opportunity to protect themselves from the certain attacks of all kinds that they are subject to. Think about it and find creative ways to pass these thoughts on in a very public manner like Facebook and others. Please?

W2D · Apr 9, 2016

rbird7282 said:
********. There are many police who are ardent 2A supporters and gladly support the right of citizens to carry.

I'm sure there are many. None that I have seen from MSP HPRB meetings though.

Mark75H · Apr 9, 2016

W2D said:
I'm sure there are many. None that I have seen from MSP HPRB meetings though.

MSP Handgun Permit Section is a special case. Neither represntitive of the rank and file Troopers on the road or LEO's in general.

W2D · Apr 9, 2016

Mark75H said:
MSP Handgun Permit Section is a special case. Neither represntitive of the rank and file Troopers on the road or LEO's in general.

I stand corrected then.

J1911 · Apr 9, 2016

Mr H said:
IMO...

The politicos view it politically, and it's a means of control. Nothing more or less.

Exactly

Blacksmith101 · Apr 9, 2016

Mark75H said:
MSP Handgun Permit Section is a special case. Neither represntitive of the rank and file Troopers on the road or LEO's in general.

Which raises the questions of who put and why are all the most gun hating cops put in licensing division? :sad20:

Mark75H · Apr 10, 2016

Blacksmith101 said:
Which raises the questions of who put and why are all the most gun hating cops put in licensing division?

Ockham's Razor probably works here.

If you were a 2A hating gun hating Trooper, wouldn't you volunteer for the job?

Vile Shadow · Apr 10, 2016

Mark75H said:
Ockham's Razor probably works here.

If you were a 2A hating gun hating Trooper, wouldn't you volunteer for the job?

Why not?

Who better to help keep political incorrectness to a minimum than those with an agenda? :rolleyes:

BeoBill · Apr 10, 2016

Agreed. Perfect place for those with "less than stellar" 2A intentions.

XRider105 · Apr 10, 2016

An obvious question but certainly a good one. I think it's two things. On the individual level, I think irrational fear fueled by ignorance and stereotyping is a major element of the problem. Your average lefty in MoCo or Baltimore doesn't own guns, has never owned guns, doesn't think anyone else should, and is frightened by those who do. So, they vote for politicians who they think will keep things "safer" by preventing the rest of us from owning guns. The ignorance component really comes into play when they fail to do even the slightest bit of research on gun crime and who's really behind it.

Collectively, I believe it is a political issue. Gun owners, gun groups and gun manufacturers vote for Republican candidates, give money to Republican candidates and rally popular support for Republican candidates. The Democratic party on a national, state and local level views the 2A crowd collectively as a political opponent, a very powerful one no less. If they can financially damage the firearms industry through excessive regulation, slander the NRA into irrelevance, and bully gun owners into submission via convoluted statutes and arbitrary laws, they have weakened a political opponent and scored a political victory.

rockstarr · Apr 11, 2016

CrueChief said:
Its more than that though most liberal progressive politicians have a superiority complex and they know that an armed citizenry is counter to their place in the ivory tower. And they can't even see how any average person would need/want to defend themselves as they would be frozen with fear themselves which is why they surround themselves with armed guards so they don't have to deal with the messy business of defending themselves.

nail meet head

Kashmir1008 · Apr 11, 2016

BradyWarrior said:
I don't think it's hate. Gun control is politically popular with enough Marylanders that it makes it worthwhile to support. In some places, like MoCo, gun control is wildly popular. The residents there do have a strong dislike of guns for the most part.

Then you have some "true believers", guys like Brian Frosh who think they are doing the right thing. In his mind, he is saving lives.

Guns have over the last 10 years become a totem of the political right. Much like abortion to the left. It's just politics, nothing personal.

Yep. People who grow up in urban/ metropolitan areas around here get most of their exposure to guns from rampant crime in or near their neighborhoods.

Politicians who want to get elected either grew up in those urban neighborhoods so they share the negative gun experience or they are pandering to the voters with "guns are bad mkay" rhetoric because they want to get elected.

It's almost impossible to get them to understand that most violent gun crime is bad guys shooting other bad guys and if that reality is removed from the equation the U.S. actually has a fairly low per capita gun homicide rate.

DanGuy48 · Apr 12, 2016

DutchV said:
Liberalism is a mental disorder. Symptoms include a lack of rational thought and loss of touch with reality.

Funny you should mention this. I was arguing with a classic ultra-liberal in another forum's thread entitled "liberalism is a mental disorder". This libtard cited a TED talk as proof that liberals had superior mental characteristics. When I listened to the talk, I saw it Instead as confirmation of exactly what the thread said. It basically shows that, across all cultures examined, it was the conservative mind that had the five characteristics of the human mind well balanced. The liberal mind had two characteristics dominating all else. Yes, liberalism is a mental disorder.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?language=en

And BTW, I do think they hate, at the very least, our guns, and some of them hate us by association. I think though that it would be useful to understand their thinking (though I admit that I don't) because it would be helpful in debating effectively with them. I suspect though that their is little to understand from a rational standpoint because there is little rational about their thinking, it's emotional. If they were rational, we wouldn't even be discussing this.

Z_Man · Apr 12, 2016

there are many many people, who honestly believe, that if they had a gun they would "just shoot someone" most of these people have so much suppressed hatrid, rage, disgust, fear, anxiety, however they feel they are better than most people (most people think they are better than most people.... liberal or not), mostly because they bottle it up inside and can hide it from society. in their moments it comes out as fits of rage, or they lash out at the ones they trust most. These are the people that will treat their family like garbage, but bend over backwards for a complete stranger, as they do not want to appear to be anything other than "nice". these people are vain people. who care about their public image, but deep inside they have many uncontrolled emotions.

Now these people as I have said think they are better than most people. so by that logic everyone MUST have the same problems as them. where they must constantly be holding in their feelings, holding back their suppressed emotions.... and when they come out they are rage. and they know that they cannot trust themselves with a gun, because when the rage comes out they will lash out in a permanent fashion. They assume EVERYONE is like them, as they are better than most everyone, so most people must have less ability to hold back the rage.

this is where the fear of guns, or anything dangerous is. these people do not trust themselves with their own emotions, and by that logic, there must not be anyone in the world who can control their emotions, so nobody should have anything dangerous. this is where the fear of firearms comes from. they fear, because they are better than everyone, and they have uncontrolled impulses, everyone else must have less control over their impulses, and having a gun would not only cause harm if one loses control of their impulses, but would encourage one to lash out as they have a tool to amplify their outburst.

this is a psychological condition, it is serious, and it applies to far more than gun control.

JHE1956 · Apr 12, 2016

I don't buy the control argument, for this reason: In the world-view of the liberal, the idea that a segment of the populace could/would rise up in armed revolt against tyrannical government is a fantasy. In their mind it will never happen. They look at those who hold onto that idea as "kooks" or "dangerous crackpots."

Their reasons for this mindset are:
1. In their mind the nation is nowhere near tyranny and never will be;
2. An armed "militia" or other discontented group will never have sufficient numbers to become an existential threat to the established order.
3. There are adequate mechanisms for addressing discontent in the existing system -- primarily through the ballot box
4. The idea that an armed population could rise up against the sitting government is a relic of a day when standing armies and police forces either did not exist, or were small and no better armed than the population at large.

Because of the above, the idea of armed revolt against the existing Government, in the mind of the liberal, is anachronistic and impossible. As such they regard it as a non-reason for firearms ownership.

Mr H · Apr 12, 2016

For the Liberal-on-the-street, you've captured it pretty well, IMO.

But, when we look up the food chain, there are those determined to control not only their own messaging to the sheeple, but also the circumstances to prevent the potential for 'pushback' from the rest of us.

The problem has become one where 'they' are no longer able to stave off the Conservatives by sheer numbers.

Blacksmith101 · Apr 12, 2016

JHE1956 said:
I don't buy the control argument, for this reason: In the world-view of the liberal, the idea that a segment of the populace could/would rise up in armed revolt against tyrannical government is a fantasy. In their mind it will never happen. They look at those who hold onto that idea as "kooks" or "dangerous crackpots."

The reasons for this mindset are:
1. In their mind the nation is nowhere near tyranny and never will be;
2. An armed "militia" or other discontented group will never have sufficient numbers to become an existential threat to the established order.
3. There are adequate mechanisms for addressing discontent in the existing system -- primarily through the ballot box
4. The idea that an armed population could rise up against the sitting government is a relic of a day when standing armies and police forces either did not exist, or were small and no better armed than the population at large.

Because of the above, the idea of armed revolt against the existing Government, in the mind of the liberal, is anachronistic and impossible. As such they regard it as a non-reason for firearms ownership.

There are people on this forum who, in various threads, have espoused each of your enumerated points. :sad20:

Why do they hate us so much?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Banned

...

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Grumpy Old Man

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

...

Crank in the Third Row

Member

Major Deplorable

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Banana'd

Grumpy Old Man

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics