Meh, I disagree, There aren't really that many antis as a whole. the number of nons? sure.... and nons are apathetic too, but I wouldn't consider them "antis"
The number of actual "I wont vote for the guy unless they're an anti like me" people in this country is ridiculously small, especially once you get outside of big dump cities. If you filled a dozen or so buses with them and pushed those buses into the grand canyon with a bulldozer most of movers in the gun control "movement" would be up in smoke. Most of their bullshit is based off astroturfing and so on, lies and even more bullshit. It's all inflated garbage. If you don't believe me look up that thing where the poli-sci students from some college went to one of the post-stoneman kids hate guns rallies and the demographic composition of the crowd they counted there. A lot of it was single mom welfare types over 40 and a handful of
kids.
Of course you are going to ask- "if there arent that many REAL antis why do seemingly all these dem pols support them?"
Political expediency. "Playing anti gun" card allows a politician to pretend they're "doing something" about big dump city urban issues/violence without actually having to get their
hands dirty or potentially take some kind of risk. So dems let the antis ride on their backs parasitically because they allow the pol to deflect responsibility and instead try to blame guns for the
problems.
Let's put it this way... if the antis had huge numbers, then why aren't they just putting up voter referendums to ban guns? The reality is most of them would lack enough support to make the
ballot. Hell, Bloomberg had to spend like what.... some ungodly amount of money to pay canvassers to run around Maine with a petition to practically BEG people to get his stupid UBC thing on the ballot. They had to PAY people to collect signatures. That's not exactly a hallmark feature of some grassroots movement.
-Mike