What do you say to your lib associates about Assualt Weapons?


February 17, 2005, 09:52 AM
I'm new to shooting, but I can already tell I'm a lifer. I went to the range for the 1st time 2 months ago. Within a month I had a 10/22 rifle, my CCW, and a revolver that both my wife and I can shoot comfortably. Ok enough about me...what about libs?

I'm talking to one yesterday, joking about Illinois, where he is from. He says, I want tougher gun control. Why do people need assault rifles? I didn't have much to say other than..."it starts there. If we let them take away constitutional rights, they won't stop with AW's." And, "Legal gun owners commit crimes at a much lower rate than the general population."

I know where you guys are on the subject, I enjoy the "good thing is wasn't an AW" sarcasm...but give me some one-liners (facts and such) to come back at him with.


If you enjoyed reading about "What do you say to your lib associates about Assualt Weapons?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
February 17, 2005, 10:01 AM
Assault weapons is just a buzzword for a normal semi-auto rifle that looks black and mean. An AR-15 is no more dangerous than a wood stock Mini 14 (accuracy and reliability aside), it just looks "evil".

February 17, 2005, 10:12 AM
I usually just ask them exactly what an "assault weapon" is ?

They usually either don't know, or say "machine guns" :rolleyes:

Then I try to explain about NFA-34 and that "assault weapon" is just a legal fiction that has no meaning in reality.

At that point they usually just wet their pants and start hyperventilating about "well, I don't know what it is but the govt knows what is bad and they should ban it and ..." :barf:

You can't argue with a hoplophobe :rolleyes:

I went through all this with a Canadian acquaintance, and anytime guns are mentioned he justs starts slobbering about "machine guns" - as if somehow fully automatic fire can kill you deader than a hunting rifle or shotgun :banghead:

February 17, 2005, 10:13 AM
Get on a site like GunsAmerica.com or AuctionArms.com or Gunbroker.com

Search for rifles chambered in .223.

Print off pictures of all sorts of rifles chambered in .223....bolt actions, break-top actions (Handi Rifle) semi-autos.

Show your lib co-worker pictures and tell him that every single one of those rifles shoots the exact same cartridge and the exact same caliber.

Especially with the semi-autos.....they shoot the exact same catridge, exact same caliber.........

The so-called "assault weapons" function exactly like all the other semi-autos.....they just have cosmetic accessories that make them "look mean."

Of course, depending on how "lib" your co-worker is, showing all those gun pics might make him faint, wet his pants, or refuse to talk to you ever again.

No big loss, if the third outcome is the result.


February 17, 2005, 10:25 AM
Great stuff so far guys. Thanks. I'm learning much myself. Tallpine, what is a hoplophobe? And by the way, I usually have no problem arguing with this lib, and owning him!

February 17, 2005, 10:27 AM
Nothing. We have different points of view on the subject. They will not change nor will I. Therefore, we don't discuss it.

February 17, 2005, 10:28 AM
hoplophobe - n. - person with an irrational and morbid fear of guns

February 17, 2005, 10:33 AM
I have a lot of influence over this kid. It's a really good opportunity. All he does is regurgitate Michael Moore rhetoric. It's easy to whip him. What is considered an assault weapon?

February 17, 2005, 10:35 AM
I guess more importantly, I'm guessing any one of us can buy a machine gun. Is there a good answer to: "Why do you need one?". Or is it just...because I CAN. (=

February 17, 2005, 10:55 AM
This turned into a novel, but I hope some of it helps:

-"Assault Rifle" and "Assault Weapon" are two different things.

-An "Assault Rifle" is a mid-range caliber rifle that is capable of fully automatic fire. You pull the trigger and it keeps on shooting. German Sturmgewher 44, AK-47, M-16, etc.

-An "Assault Weapon" is a made-up term. Assault weapons were defined by legislators flipping through a gun catalog and picking out weapons that "looked" dangerous. As defined, an "Assault Weapon" might LOOK similar to an "Assault Rifle", but can only shoot once for every time you pull the trigger.

-The "Assault Weapons" ban did NOTHING to further regulate the sale and ownership of Assault Rifles. Anyone can own one if they pay a transfer fee and pass a stringent background check - established in the 1930s.

-The term "assault Weapon" plays upon the confusion between a semi-automatic weapon like a Saiga and a fully-automatic weapon like an AK-47. The news media has even been known to show a fully-automatic Assault Rifle blasting away on full auto when doing stories about Assault Weapons.

-Can't use Assault Weapons for hunting? The second amendment is not about hunting, it is about truly creating a government of/by/for the People and denying tyrants the ability to run the United States.

-The original definition of "Assault Weapon", in my opinion, was a "camel's nose in the tent" strategy. Is the 30-06 Remington 7400 I use to hunt deer an "Assault Weapon"? It's actually significantly more powerful than an AK-47. Is a 30-30 lever-action Winchester an "Assault Weapon"? It can punch through standard police and military body armour. Is a shotgun an "Assault Weapon"? Loaded with slugs, a $100 single-shot shotgun can punch through and destroy a Master Lock - the ones that still work when shot with a high-powered rifle. Once we accept that certain guns can be outlawed, it's not a big jump to the next gun until we are only allowed to own licensed $2000+ shotguns that we need to store and shoot down at the gun club because John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi "believe in the 2nd Amendment".

-''If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it.'' – Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995.

-All legislation for renewing the "Assault Weapons" ban included expanding the definition of "Assault Weapons" to include more rifles.

-Is a baseball bat an "Assault Weapon"? Many baseball bats, pool cues, nightsticks, big flashlights and rolling pins have been used as a weapon to assault someone. Is it "assault" when someone uses one of thee weapons to defend themselves? Or does "assault" depend on the motivations of the assault-er? "Assault" is a crime. Weapons do not commit crimes. Is it "assault" if you use an effective weapon to defend yourself and your family from assault or attack? Possession of a weapon does not force a person to commit a crime. Your car is a much more potent weapon than ANY pistol, shotgun, rifle or machine gun. It's "Assault" if you choose to drive your car into a crowd, but you're still not driving an "Assault Vehicle".

-In my opinion, movies like "Die Hard" created the assumption that so-called "assault weapons" and even "assault rifles" were being used in crimes. In reality, only 1-2% (depending on which study you believe) of crimes before AND AFTER the AWB involved "Assault Weapons".

-Why own one? Well - as an American, your first answer to that should be "it's a free country" followed with a quick "mind your own **** business", but no one seems to learn the basics of being a free citizen while growning up anymore. If you really need to explain it, military rifles are easy to operate, fun to shoot, built strong enough to shoot many rounds in one sitting - like at a competition or while under attack from multiple attackers, designed for all sizes/strengths of people to operate, designed to operate in deserts/jungles/everywhere in between, low recoil, ammo is readily and cheaply available, many are affordable for people who don't have Secret Service protection or can't afford bodyguards, while not optimal for deer - most CAN be used for hunting, full-capacity magazines allow for recurring shots without leaving yourself defenseless, standardization allows for replacement and after-market parts and accessories to keep your rifle operating and match it to your specific needs.

A better question is "Why NOT own one? Don't you care about your life and protecting your family?"

"You don't?...well, I do."

More info:


M2 Carbine
February 17, 2005, 11:23 AM
You can usually ask a liberal what he means by an Assault Rifle.

They don't know an Assault Rifle from a trash can lid.

Then I tell them "Assault Rifle" type guns have been controlled since the early 1930s because an Assault Rifle is a machine gun, M16, AK47, etc.

Then if the person seems to be worth your time you can explain to them that 99.9% of what they learned about guns from other liberals and the news media is wrong.

Usually it's just a waste of time talking to a liberal but someone that's just misinformed about guns might be worth educating.

Joe Demko
February 17, 2005, 11:27 AM
Nothing. I don't discuss "assault weapons" with liberal associates or religion with conservative associates. I don't discuss abortion with either. Nothing to be gained.

February 17, 2005, 11:50 AM
Show them what the "assault weapons ban" actually covered:

all firearms holding over 10 rounds, with a few inconsequential exceptions;

all civilian self-loading firearms having certain features, like a rifle with the stock shaped a certain way;

and banned the use of 19 scary names in the marketing of civilian firearms.

It did NOT ban military AK-47's, military Uzi's, "weapons of war," or whatever; automatic weapons are already restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (which has been on the books for 70 years now...)

The "assault weapon" issue is a classic bait-and-switch. The guns most affected by the ban were full-size handguns like the one in your local police officer's holster (Glock 17, S&W 5906, Beretta 92, Ruger P-89). Show him how he's been manipulated.

February 17, 2005, 12:02 PM
They eventually cave and admit that they want to go to the range.

Molon Labe
February 17, 2005, 12:33 PM
I say,

"I like my assault weapon.

"It does not have a sporting purpose, and I'm not going to give it one. I also do not care how many crimes are committed with assault weapons. Such statistics have no bearing on my right to own and shoot it.

"My assault weapon is a tool for defending myself against those who seek to confiscate my rights. If there ever comes a day when we're living under tyranny, you can bet your a$$ I'll be using it. And if thugs ever show up at my door to confiscate my rifle & ammo, rest assured I'll be giving them the bullets first."

February 17, 2005, 12:36 PM
I tell them it isn't a "Girly Man" thing... they wouldn't understand... then leave it at that....




I'm new to shooting, but I can already tell I'm a lifer. I went to the range for the 1st time 2 months ago. Within a month I had a 10/22 rifle, my CCW, and a revolver that both my wife and I can shoot comfortably. Ok enough about me...what about libs?

I'm talking to one yesterday, joking about Illinois, where he is from. He says, I want tougher gun control. Why do people need assault rifles? I didn't have much to say other than..."it starts there. If we let them take away constitutional rights, they won't stop with AW's." And, "Legal gun owners commit crimes at a much lower rate than the general population."

I know where you guys are on the subject, I enjoy the "good thing is wasn't an AW" sarcasm...but give me some one-liners (facts and such) to come back at him with.


February 17, 2005, 12:54 PM
I live in New Jersey, so we're not allowed to own assault weapons.

That said, I do enjoy my Bushmaster XM15 target rifle.

Headless Thompson Gunner
February 17, 2005, 12:56 PM
I tell them, in short, to mind their own business. I don't spend my days trying to tell them how to live their lives, or what kinds of products they're allowed to spend their money on. I expect the same courtesy from them.

"Freedom means not imposing your will upon your neighbors. I respect your freedom, and I expect you to respect mine."

They usually get the message.

February 17, 2005, 01:00 PM
I always try to get them to go to the range and shoot my AR. I start with a .22 semi auto and then move to the .223. Then I ask them why one is labled an AW and the other is not. So far I have converted about 70%.


Kurt S.
February 17, 2005, 01:06 PM
I hope this jpeg attachment comes through. Just in case it doesn't, it's a collapsible stock/forend with an "AR-15 type muzzle mount" on an H&R single shot 12 gauge. The first thing that happened when I saw this in the Sportsmens Guide catalog was I started giggling like a 12 year old girl. (I don't mean anything personal by this if accessorizing firearms is what lift's anybody's, uh, spirits- you should have seen what I did to a Ruger 10/22 one time. I also apologize if you are a 12 year old girl.) The second thing was how this would likely cause a hoplophobe's bladder to cut loose.

Point is that if you showed the picture to somebody who isn't familiar with guns but knows that "assault weapons are evil and should be banned", it would probably closely correlate with the image in their mind of what said "assault weapon" looks like.

February 17, 2005, 01:17 PM
Don't bother discussing what an "assualt weapon" is. Instead, take the opportunity to discuss with him what "need" is. Hone in on the "need" for whatever he fancies, and cut him to the bone with it. If he isn't a complete idiot he will come around. The cognitive dissonance he experiences as he shifts to thinking rather than repeating may cause it to take some time.

Jay Kominek
February 17, 2005, 02:16 PM
As has been mentioned, I ask them to define "assault weapon". I then explain in excruciating detail the myriad ways in which they are wrong. I then ask how they feel about handguns. I ask them reconcile their fear of handguns and their concealability with their fear of the rifles which were deemed assault weapons, in light of the fact that they're Really Big. This confuses them.

I usually toss in some stuff about "need" and the whole point of rights. But that goes completely over their heads.

I don't really get anywhere with it, so either my technique is flawed, or I'm generally dealing with a particularly irrational breed of statist. (I suspect the latter, really. I need to move.)

February 17, 2005, 02:25 PM
To set the record straight, he wasn't criticising anyone. We were just having a conversation. As a matter of fact, he has NO IDEA I CCW. That's the way it is supposed to be right?

So, I didn't feel he was trying to infringe on my rights, but that he had been mislead. I just didn't have the proper information to steer him straight again. Some of you have helped with that.

The most compelling information that I have read is information that supports the fact that legal owners of legal guns commit far less crimes than the overall population. And of course, times when a legal gun owner has successfully defended his family or someone close to him.

February 17, 2005, 02:33 PM
all firearms holding over 10 rounds
I love how my Remington 522 Viper .22 rifle is an assault weapon!

February 17, 2005, 04:41 PM
It is usually a machine gun. I ring the buzzer on them and expalin the error of their ways. Also try www.awbansunset.com, it has some great material on the subject.

The Rabbi
February 17, 2005, 04:42 PM
Yes, the usual "argument" is "what does anyone need one for?" Remind them that products do not have to prove their need to the government in order to be marketed. The marketplace itself determines whether a product is "needed" or not. This is why you dont see too many .400Cor-bon guns marketed. I guess no one "needed" that. Of course there are places where need must be demonstrated. I think No.Korea is one. Cuba maybe another.

February 17, 2005, 04:46 PM
Nothing. It's as bad as discussing Ford vs. Chevy. They can't get it throught their heads that because it's black (in most cases) and has a "banana clip" then it's a "machine gun". :cuss:

February 17, 2005, 05:10 PM
My AR-15 is NOT an 'Assault Weapon' -- because it is not fully automatic and it is NOT used in military combat. However, it is one cool-looking (and useful) "Sport-Utility Rifle".

February 17, 2005, 05:12 PM
Or "homeland security rifle" :)

Fudgie Ghost
February 17, 2005, 06:00 PM
Well, if you can, and I'm sure it's on the web somewhere, get a copy of "The Case for Assault Weapons" (or Rifles--I can't remember), by. . . damn! I can't remember the man's name! I know he's a lawyer. . . Very well written thesis going over the answer to your lib friends question. Very long and thorough. He also wrote "A Nation of Cowards". People, help me here, with this guy's name-- I'm having a brain fart.

Or. . .

for a more visceral answer: watch the '92 tapes of the Rodney King riots in LA, especially as that truck driver was pulled out of his truck and beaten, or when the LA police are hurriedly leaving a worsening area, tell the nearby people: "You have a constitutional right to defend yourselves. . . " or the stories out of the Homestead FLA area in the aftermath of hurricane Andrew.

Or. . .

remember what the feelings were like, (especially around here) just after 9/11---nobody was sure what was going to break loose next, and NOBODY was talking about getting guns banned--quite the opposite, even among previously anti-gun types.


February 17, 2005, 06:30 PM
What do I say to my Lib associates about assault weapons? Nothing. I don't have any "lib associates".
When I come across a stranger that has a view, I demonstrate the difference. Then I explain that the AWB has nothing to do with my assault rifles. About 90% of them want to know how they can get an assault rifle. I show them the price tag and sell them an AR15.


February 17, 2005, 06:43 PM
"Uh, aren't those the ones that can kill you super-duper, extra-special, double-stamp, no-quitsies dead?" :rolleyes:

Ky Larry
February 17, 2005, 08:45 PM
I tell them I don't own any assualt weapons. All my weapons are assualt "prevention" weapons. :evil:

February 17, 2005, 09:43 PM
First things first. Welcome. . . .noobies buy ammo at the next THR shoot.

Assault weapons and assault rifles are miles apart in reality. An assault rifle is a technically descriptive firearm that exists. Assault weapon is a made up term by an anti-gun advocate named Josh Sugarmann. He created a term, infused his own definition with the help of some really damaged politicos and their aides. The term is confusing for obvious reasons WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT HE INTENDED TO HAPPEN.

In any case google up "gun facts" It is a pdf file just chocked full of facts and documentation. A great read in the tile library.

I've discussed the second amendment with anti's from time to time. In most cases they are profoundly ignorant but a few are without the ability to reason. It is most important to determine which species you are addressing. If they are ignorant you are doing the republic good by educating them. If they are without the ability to reason, save your breath and go argue with a traffic light.

Good luck and keep us posted.

February 17, 2005, 09:46 PM
I always buy about 60 rounds more than I'll need for my AR15. Often there are hunters or families with their .22s and deer rifles. Their first response is to stare wide eyed at my rifle (mostly the younger shooters). Then come the questions: "Is that a machine gun?" "Is that what the military uses?" "Is that legal?" even "How was that gun affected by the AWB?" After answering the questions with simple answers, I offer them the opportunity to shoot it. Every single person, hands down, that I've got to shoot it came away with a huge grin on their face and often the comment "I'm going to buy one of those." They all of the sudden question all the hype they've heard about AW. Most of them are simply terrified of it before they fire it. They all think it will kick like a mule and blow the back of the range out. Many of them actually giggle when they realize there is nearly no recoil.

Discussion and reasoning can only go so far but nothing dispells misconceptions and myths better than personal experience. We should set a date each month as "Take an anti (or non shooter) to the range day"

February 17, 2005, 09:52 PM
Nothing. I don't discuss "assault weapons" with liberal associates or religion with conservative associates. I don't discuss abortion with either. Nothing to be gained.
Hear, hear!

Standing Wolf
February 17, 2005, 09:57 PM
I can truthfully tell you I don't know a single leftist in Colorado. Heck, for all I could tell you, there aren't any outside Denver and Boulder.

February 17, 2005, 10:37 PM
When the need argument comes up, I ask what kind of car they drive.

"Using your reasoning, your car should be banned because it can go over the speed limit, which you don't NEED to do." Then comes the obligatory comment about how this is a free country and need doesn't dictate law. One good way to shut them up is to say, "I have several of the guns you're talking about. I keep them locked in a safe, and they've never killed anyone. Now, you give me one good reason why I, as a responsible citizen, should not be allowed to own one." Then, after much stammering on their part, either educate them more or walk away and leave them baffled.

February 17, 2005, 11:31 PM
I like to put it in terms they can readily understand.
Me: Let's say you drive a stock, red, Honda Accord.
Anti: OK
Me: That's a socially acceptable car, right?
Anti; Yes.
Me: So lets say you paint it flat black all over, put a wing on the trunk, add mag wheels and wide tires, bolt on a cosmetic fiberglass front end, tint the windows, and enlarge the gas tank capacity a bit. Picture this.
Anti:Uh, OK.
Me:You now have an assault vehicle, which is banned in California and New York.
Anti: !!!!

February 17, 2005, 11:54 PM
I try to say nothing at all. I would rather go outside and talk to the wall... I think it would at least let me finish my sentence.

I was laughing at the stupidity of a couple guys who got in a gunfight over some fried chicken on day. The most liberal person I know, came over to see the article in the paper. She said "Do you have guns?" I made the dumb mistake of answering yes. She said "Is it do defend yourself?", in a really condescending tone of voice. I said no, it's for clay pigeons. Gave a very brief description of that. She got a kick out of that one, started laughing. As she left, she said, "I hope you don't have little kids in your house."


That was the last "conversation" I had with her. It was one too many.


If a "little kid" can climb up 7 feet to the key cabinet, get the key, open the door, figure out the action release, lift the gun (one is 870 express with 15 rounds in or on it), carry the gun, then there could be a problem... Oh, I forgot about them having to get into the room with the gun "locker" to begin with... The one I'm thinking about is 15 months old {neice... visits occasionally}...

Kurt S.
February 18, 2005, 11:42 AM
I was laughing at the stupidity of a couple guys who got in a gunfight over some fried chicken on day. The most liberal person I know, came over to see the article in the paper. She said "Do you have guns?" I made the dumb mistake of answering yes. She said "Is it do defend yourself?", in a really condescending tone of voice. I said no, it's for clay pigeons. Gave a very brief description of that. She got a kick out of that one, started laughing. As she left, she said, "I hope you don't have little kids in your house."

Very interesting post. A good illustration of the abject ignorance and arrogance of the knee-jerk antigun individual. This person is so astoundingly narrow minded and uninformed that she has no idea there is a very popular firearms sport that hundreds of thousands of people enjoy. Keep in mind that skeet/trap/clays is often portrayed in books, TV, and films. A person with any breadth of common knowledge would know about it. She then treats your explanation with mocking laughter.

God bless the progunners that try to turn somebody like this woman, but it's way too much of an uphill task for me.

February 18, 2005, 12:10 PM
a die hard anti isnt worth the effort. in the time it takes to convince 1 anti that isnt gonna listen to facts, you can convert 20 or more uninformed fence sitters with simple facts and/or a trip to the range.

the whole gun control arguement I have found that pointing out that all gun control laws place you and me and every other law abideing citizen into the same catagory as common criminals. and than point out that criminals could care less about any firearm laws they might be breaking. because they are criminals, that are defined as people who break the law. leaving the law abiding citizens to have their rights infringed and do nothing to stop crime.

Black Snowman
February 18, 2005, 04:01 PM
Funny, most of my liberal associates either aren't anti-gun anymore or don't want to talk to me these days. :evil:

rock jock
February 18, 2005, 04:06 PM
Everyone I work with is conservative, everyone I go to church with is conservative, all my friends are conservative, and my family and my wife's family are all conservative. If I want to talk with a liberal, I'll look under the nearest rock.

February 18, 2005, 04:14 PM
When this subject comes up I usually start tuning out whoever is spewing it. That is until they are done talking and waiting for me to say something. That's when I point blank say we're going to the range and I'll pick them up at so and so time. Most of the time they initially look shocked and appalled. Then it's like a light goes off in thier head when they realize they are actually going to shoot a gun. Great way to convert some of those antis.

No one at work says anything to me anymore. They all know I'm very pro gun. Could be the 50 Cal round that sits on my desk, or the 45 cal shrapnel that's there as well. Of couse it's not hard to miss my FFLs card I have next to them. Favorite saying at work "Do you really want to piss off someone that can take you out at 600 yrds". Of course you can only say this to people who know you. Otherwise, its a fast way to HR!!! :scrutiny:

Sean Smith
February 18, 2005, 04:20 PM
I don't bring them up. My little pistol scares them enough as it is.

No, that isn't a joke about my dating history. :D

February 18, 2005, 05:20 PM
I recall seeing a statement that more children die each year on school playgrounds then by firearms.

Maybe we should outlaw playgrounds.

February 18, 2005, 11:04 PM
I simply tell them that I like my guns more than Ted Kennedy likes his car that he runs people over with. And I don't ask them what they do with there cars so don't ask me about my guns.

February 18, 2005, 11:13 PM
I will say this. Liberals are very rude. I never bring anything up to them about what a pansy ass party they have or how they have no idea how Kerry was going to give them jobs, they just know that he is. But it seems like every time I'm around a lib, they have to start in on my guns.

My wifes cousin brings up the fact that she thinks nobody should have guns. Her husband blames George Bush because he didn't have a job and they are broke. I have to keep reminding them that they live in Flint MI. which is a GM town and they drive a foreign car. Then I have to tell them quit bit!@##$ about how you don't have a job when you're supporting a foreign economy. My company offered to hire him within his field and wasn't even interested. He like laying around on the couch complaining more I guess.

Anyway, my point is, you're never going to talk to a lib about assault weapons, rifles, guns, knifes, dogs, or cats. They just want to complain. They don't really care to hear your explanation as long as your hearing how stupid your beliefs are from them. There is no point. In reality, I simply invite them to the gun range and if they don't want to go then I tell them don't ever talk to me about this subject again until you are willing to have an open mind and come try it. After that, we'll talk.

Burt Blade
February 18, 2005, 11:54 PM
Over a century ago, a bunch of folks who called themselves "Democrats" wanted to keep rapid-fire rifles and handguns out of the "wrong" hands. Some went further, and wanted _all_ guns barred from the "wrong" hands. Others just wanted the _effective_ guns banned from the "wrong" hands.

Hands that were black, poor, and starting to act like they had rights, too.

And still, today, there are folks who want to ban the guns that let _one_ person defend against a mob. They fear that a person with the power to enforce his rights might stop _obeying_ his betters. Make no mistake. This is all about power and dominance. The slaver cannot stand the idea of a free man saying "no". It makes little difference if that slaver is called "Cotton Farmer" or "Social Progressive".

They believe they are better than you, wiser than you, and that they should be directing your life. To them, you are too stupid or evil to be allowed to make your own decisions. Some of them will permit loose collars and light chains, perhaps even just a servile submisison. Others will go as far as they can imagine, and then still more. All of them believe that your purpose is to serve their aims, their way.

They see no threat to themselves in your wife, mother, or daughter raped and strangled with her own pantyhose. They see their own doom in your wife, mother, or daughter standing over the bullet-riddled corpse of a would-be rapist. The former slave with a Winchster or Colt was as terrifying to a bunch of sheet-heads as the former serf with AR-15 or Glock is to the modern cowards.

I have difficulty uttering a word strong enough to describe such people, who would render all rivals, and even bystanders, impotent victims. "Evil" just doesn't go far enough, nor does "tyrant", or "sadist". These people think that the good of society is based on submission to rape, plunder, and murder.

February 19, 2005, 02:28 PM
I find that liberals are generally very well intentioned, well educated (strictly classroom), and catastrophically ignorant people.

A good way to begin a debate with a liberal is with the use of a hypothetical, a 'what would you do' scenario. Of course you are baiting a trap, but that's life... :D

Then a statement that appeals to their better nature.

"In a situation like the one I described, it isn't just your right, but your solemn responsibility to yourself and your family (or those you must protect) to seek the advantage, whatever that may be, and survive because of it. These weapons embody that advantage."

Then shut up. ANY discussion that leads to subjective interpretation of the 2nd amendment will go nowhere quick, and neither of you is sitting on the Supreme Court, so don't waste your time.

Logic and reason will not always prevail against an ingrained idea, but never hesitate to chip away at the wall. You never know how many before you have tried.

*hops off soapbox*

Cicero said "an unjust law is NO LAW" (emphasis added). Nothing a man can write down for others to read and obey can possibly compete with the divine right to stay alive.


*hops back off soapbox*

February 19, 2005, 02:32 PM
Okay, sorry, chiming in again.

Doesn't it crack you up that the primary purchasers of ASSAULT weapons are departments of DEFENSE??

Food for thought... :rolleyes:

February 19, 2005, 03:21 PM
What do you say to your lib associates about Assualt Weapons?

"Wanna shoot mine?"

February 19, 2005, 03:37 PM
A gun is a gun is a gun. They all propell a projectile downrange. What the projectile strikes and the damage is causes in entirely withing the control of the human being operating the firearm. Guns aren't dangerous, people are.

February 19, 2005, 06:10 PM
Very good stuff guys. I appreciate the one liners and short paragraphs packed with facts and hypotheticals powerful enough to make even a liberal think. It is not impossible guys.

If I get the opportunity to talk to him about it again, I'll let you know how it goes. As it is now, no one knows I am into guns. I'm sure they'll know in time, but this is a pretty good opportunity for me to champion the 2nd ammendement and still appear very impartial.

February 20, 2005, 06:22 PM
What do you say to your lib associates about Assault Weapons?

I don't say anything. These people have no concept of the origin or maintenance of freedom. I would no more attempt to discuss AWs with them than I would discuss "Macbeth" with the family dog. Either effort is an exercise in futility.

February 21, 2005, 10:45 AM
I find myself being on the 'liberal' side of the fence on many issues. To me, anyone who supports a individual interpretation of the second amendment really ought to be called a liberal. The liberals are supposed to support the freedoms of the Constitution to the extreme. I don't agree with the modern-day liberals on some issues, mostly about social programs and fiscal issues, but most of all their irrational distaste for private ownership of firearms. I guess this makes me closest to a libertarian. When a liberal wants to impose strict limits on the ownership of guns, especially 'scary guns' that could be used to commit a crime, the best way to help them understand how foolish and authoritarian it is seems to be an analogy that they can empathize with. An appeal to their own fundamental beliefs but in a different context.

When they tell you 'assault weapons' should be banned because nobody needs them and they could be used to kill, talk to them about some other amendments they seem to like. Take the first amendment. Tell them 'Yeah that makes sense, I suppose we should ban protests as well because they usually turn into riots and people get killed. In fact, I'll bet riots kill more people than assault weapons.' Imagine their confusion about this statement. Surely they would be aghast at the suggestion that their fundamental right to free speech and protest should be abridged because a few people take it to a violent extreme. Perhaps that can give them a better view of the second amendment. Take some other plain examples, maybe 'Yeah I think BMWs should be outlawed because they can go over the speed limit and could be used for street racing. People get killed a lot in street races, and it could happen in a school zone where kids are playing.' Invariably, they will respond with something like 'Well that's silly, I know plenty of people who own BMWs that don't street race. Just because some stupid people do it doesn't mean they should all be outlawed!' The fundamental concept is the same, and perhaps it could help them better understand where you're coming from. After all, nobody needs to protest or own BMWs right?

It seems that the #1 misunderstanding about assault weapons, as others have mentioned, is that they have something to do with machine guns or automatic fire. If your liberal in need of re-education believes that to be the case, you can usually nip the whole conversation in the bud really quickly just by clearing that up.

February 21, 2005, 11:17 AM
Why would you have liberal associates? j/k

My best friend lives in NYC and is what most would consider a liberal. We are actually pretty similar but he just sees guns as something fun once in a while out in the woods and I see them as a useful tool. I just tell him that there is no reason to limit liberty if you aren't hurting other people. He doesn't have much of a comeback to that one since he is for legalizing just about everything as long as you aren't infringing on someone elses rights.

Then again my friend isn't a jerk and actually is able to employ reasoning...

Partisan Ranger
February 21, 2005, 02:14 PM
Why do I need an 'assault weapon' (sic)?

Why do you need a Suburu WRX that can do 0-60 in 5.2 seconds and go 75 mph over the max legal speed limit? Why don't you buy a Hyundai instead? Both are cars, both will get you where you want to go. So why do you 'need' the Sube?

You don't really need it. But you WANT it.

In my view, this is a (sort of) free country and as long as you do not break laws and/or harm others, each of us should be able to buy what we please.

It's really easy to cherry pick this item or that item that you yourself don't care about and say 'why does anybody need a such and such?'

It always gets down to the fact that in a free society, people should be able to buy what they please, long as it's legal and doesn't hurt anyone.

February 21, 2005, 02:21 PM
I just got through talking to a guy a few minute ago in IRC...he lives in California.
He wants less guns all around, but especially handguns.
His reasoning? He's tired of seeing children die.
After a while, the conversation died down with no leeway.
He's was all, "But if you get rid of guns, gun crime will go down.."
Yea...it might.

February 21, 2005, 02:40 PM
No liberal friends. :)

February 21, 2005, 05:55 PM
Now why would I discuss my guns, with any liberal associate? Frankly, what I do with that aspect of my life is just plain none of their business.

February 22, 2005, 02:02 PM
'Assault weapons' are such a hard sell in California you really have to get them into guns and have them dip their toes in the gun culture before they'd understand.

February 22, 2005, 02:43 PM
"Mine is for homeland defense, I keep it in the safe. Where's yours?"


February 22, 2005, 09:44 PM
I just tell them it's a standard semi auto thats designed to be as rugged as possible for use on the range or woods, why do you have issues with that?
And it's also true. :D

February 23, 2005, 11:08 AM
Since I don't own any assault weapons, it's not an issue....

My AR-15 doesn't have a third position on the selector....

Billy the Kid
February 23, 2005, 11:10 AM
Not all liberals are against AW or Guns, me for example. What should we say to people who broad brush and stick thier foot in thier mouth?

February 23, 2005, 11:14 AM
I want a black powder muzzle loader...
With a pistol grip, and bayonet lug, a telescoping stock, a barrel shroud(Not sure what this is, but I want one), and a threaded barrel capable of accepting sound and flash supressors...not that they'd work, but I'm not looking for functionality.

February 23, 2005, 03:19 PM
What do I say?
Now that it's light outside long enough after school, I'm gonna be shooting a couple times a week. Give me a few days notice, and I'll give you some trigger time...

So far I've had 2 guys offer to take me up on it.

February 23, 2005, 03:47 PM
mbs357, I'm pretty sure that the lug is fairly easy. After all, bayonets were orginally important because you couldn't keep the rate of fire up.

As for the rest, it'd make for an interesting looking gun. It'd also be extremely funny to show a vid of a prosecuter holding the weapon up and talking about this deadly, rapid fire, shoot from the hip instrument of death.


BTW were you looking at a flintlock one, or one that uses primers?

30 cal slob
February 23, 2005, 04:27 PM
I don't try to talk to commie-libs on guns. You can talk until your blue in the face and you :banghead: .

Instead, if they are willing, I invite them to go shooting.

Start off easy - say, a .22 revolver.

Then move up to a .22 pistol.

Explain the autoloading function.

Then move up to a beefier caliber.

Then, when they're good and ready, have them fire a real subgun, with and without a supressor. Explain to them this is a MACHINE GUN.

Then move to a rifle caliber in .223.

Have them shoot a semi. Say, a stock Ruger Mini-14 or Colt AR-15 variant.

Then, have them shoot a full-auto battle rifle (3 rd burst max). Say, a Ruger AC-556 or a Colt M-16.

They'll have an idea at the end of the day of the functional difference between an assault rifle and perhaps and understanding of all the cosmetic baloney associated with semi-autos.

It's easier for antis to see and feel with their own eyes and ears, rather than you talking about it.

Plus, most of the antis end up having a ball, having just shot a gun for the first time.

When these folks see other ordinary guys/gals having fun at the range, and doing it safely, they walk away with a different image of gun owners.

I've converted a lot more people this way (they pay for ammo and range time, I get stuck with the cleaning) than arguing with folk.

For the people that are willing (and not everyobdy will be), take 'em shooting! At least they'll have earned the right to talk about assault weapons, having shot them.

February 23, 2005, 08:20 PM
A few converts along the way. Damned few.

My own definition of assault weapon is "A weapon used in the commission of an assault." Period.

Ex-boyfriend hacks up woman with a big honkin' Chinese meat cleaver? That's an assault weapon.

Drunk old lady on Interstate 95 plows into man changing tire on the shoulder, killing him instantly? That's an assault weapon.

February 23, 2005, 10:32 PM
"lib associates"???

What are THOSE? I ain't got none!

You must be refering to those sheep-like creatures that have wet spots near the crotch of their pants. Yeah - I gave up trying to reason with that species a long time ago. I hear they're endangered now...

February 24, 2005, 10:51 AM
I just tell 'em to ****!

That's probably why I don't have very many liberal associates. :evil:

February 24, 2005, 12:23 PM
I'll try to educate them some at first, if it appears that they're willing to listen and be logical/reasonable. Some of them, there's no way I could convert them. That'd be like trying to convert the Pope to Islam. Ain't gonna happen. I don't engage in guntalk with those poor lost souls.

February 24, 2005, 12:39 PM
I have quit trying to discuss guns with my anti-gun coworkers, all we do is end up arguing. Every time I try to explain something they give me the “I don’t want to here about it remark.” Ignorance is the biggest issue with most of them, they simply have no idea what they are talking about. They base all their info on what the see on tv.

Fudgie Ghost
February 24, 2005, 01:06 PM
Oh, oh, I remembered that guy's name: Jeff Snyder Google it and get his stuff about "assault weapons". Warning: not light reading.

February 24, 2005, 01:13 PM
No bayonet lug, no bipod. Why, I don't have an assault weapon at all!

What was I thinking?


February 24, 2005, 01:18 PM
BTW were you looking at a flintlock one, or one that uses primers?
Not too familiar with muzzle loaders, in my mind I picture the ones that were used along the time of the Revolutionary War. Flint lock, I'm sure.
Perhaps I should hang around the muzzle loader forum. =D
mbs357, I'm pretty sure that the lug is fairly easy. After all, bayonets were orginally important because you couldn't keep the rate of fire up.
Yea, bayonet lugs were probably mandatory on muzzle loaders. Take a shoot, swing it and jab it around for a while til you get a chance to reload. =)

February 24, 2005, 01:48 PM
What do you say to your lib associates about Assault Weapons?

I like the idea about offering to take them to the range. As for the ones who are impervious to logic, I'll generally ignore them, or if they persist, repeat my .sig line below to them.

If you enjoyed reading about "What do you say to your lib associates about Assualt Weapons?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!