Trying to reason with a pro-ban "pro-2a" soon-to-be-former friend...


PDA






Diamondback6
January 9, 2013, 07:06 PM
So, I'm trying to shock some sense into a formerly close friend who flipped to the other side after the Newtown cluster of spree-killings (it's time to STOP calling them school shootings like they're something special, which plays into the other side's hands, and just lump them in with all the other spree killings), and I need some advice on a draft email. Rules are, keep it intellectual and articulate... I need well-reasoned approaches that I can club a former law-student over the head with and have a good chance of them getting her to see that if she helps DiFi & Co. throw US under the bus today, SHE will be joining us under the tires tomorrow and all we'll have to say is "Told You So".

Here's what I have so far... latest revisions in bold red, and still working.
You probably think anything outside the Ivy League doesn't count, but do give Olson & Kopel, "All the Way Down The Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America," 22 Hamline Law Review 399-465 (1999) a read. For that matter, a whole page of law-review articles for my side can be found at Second Amendment Law Library: Law Journals (http://www.guncite.com/journals/), [strike: "though I don't know why I'm wasting my breath as your mind is made up"]--just remember, the people you're siding with today, after you've thrown us under the bus, they will put you under the wheels with us next... when she was Attorney General, Janet Reno once declared "registration is just a first step, confiscation is the ultimate goal" and NOBODY on your side has repudiated that nor has she retracted it (and that's precisely how [strike: "your idiots in"] Sacramento set the stage for the Roberti-Roos ban that keeps getting expanded every time they find something new to be scared of.). And [strike: "your galpal"] Feinstein has said as much herself, here: Dianne Feinstein caught in a lie - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DKuN2ey80) So I trust you can see why pro-banners' LONG history of broken promises and not letting the ink dry on one set of demands before starting another leads us to see anything as "negotiating in Bad Faith," ESPECIALLY in parallel with the history of Dems saying "give us what WE want now (tax hikes, amnesty for illegal aliens) and we'll give you something (spending cuts, entitlement reform, better border security) later" and then welshing on the deal as soon as they've gotten what they've wanted, or interpreting a "cut" as meaning "we're just not going to increase spending AS MUCH as we planned"... which is like if you normally gain five pounds a month, going on a diet and calling a gain of three "losing weight."

An enlightening little piece out of New York: Gun Restrictions Have Always Bred Defiance, Black Markets - Reason.com (http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian) How well did Prohibition of alcohol--which, I would remind you, required a Constitutional amendment to do, so by that precedent the 2A with its "Shall Not Be Infringed" is still Law of the Land until itself repealed or amended--work out in its goals? It didn't, and it only caused more harm by giving more power to organized crime. As a thought experiment--I'm not even agreeing to the Constitutionality of this, but just as a discussion, never mind that there would be only negligible compliance and the cost in time and manpower to do it would be far beyond practical, let's assume that you could wave a magic wand and get rid of every semiauto rifle in the country, which includes the M1 Garand Uncle Frank carried in WWII and the M1 Carbine he liberated Mauthausen concentration-camp with... Okay, now that gives a significant firepower advantage to the drug cartels immediately, and then their allies, and finally they will see another moneymaker in contraband and the country will be awash in iron from them and they probably WON'T stop at mere semis but go all the way to full-autos. It would have the unintended consequence of basically bringing Mexico's problems here... oh, by the way, since courts have ruled that police have no duty to protect the individual or any group, currently proposed legislation, if in effect, then would have basically left the Koreans trapped in the LA riots to whatever mercy the rioting mob besieging them may have been inclined to show... those AR-15s on those rooftops SAVED LIVES by being a force-multiplier, and such policy would have (and Roberti-Roos HAS) left them defenseless against any future such threat. What HAS happened before CAN and probably WILL happen again... it's just a matter of the trigger conditions being present.

By the way, the shooter at Sandy Hook was an undiagnosed schiozophrenic who had his family hiding him rather than getting him the care he NEEDED, because they're a Money/Socialite Family (dad is a VP at GE) and didn't want to be ostracized from their precious snob-circuit... and one of the people on Biden's task-force is a cop whose own son is a thwarted wannabe Spree Killer. [Citations included in email, which is on my other laptop.]

On top of which, the genie is out of the bottle: it's actually very simple to make an AR receiver, so there will be many who would just give up one and have ten more made before the confiscating agency's vehicle was even back on the street, and quite a few of those would be likely, once they had made the decision to cross the Rubicon, to go all the way to full-auto. Pair that with the fact that the AR is easily oe of the most common rifles in America and is thus protected under the Heller decision's "Common Use" test...

For the utility of semiauto rifles, Mas Ayoob has an article worth reading at Massad Ayoob Blog Archive WHY GOOD PEOPLE NEED SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS AND (http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/12/29/why-good-people-need-semiautomatic-firearms-and-high-capacity-magazines-part-i/)

I am sorry, but I must withdraw that range invitation--if you honestly believe the average citizen should not have things and are truly honest with yourself, then you will recognize that by that logic you have no business reaping any of the benefits that they offer.

Thoughts? Additional data? Elaboration? This isn't the "Dear Jane, goodbye, have a nice life" letter yet, but if she can't be brought back to her senses (as recently as October, she was telling me that she agreed with me about the importance of the citizen rifle in home and homeland defense, which to me means best-case she's been swept up in the SFO-area hysteria) that may well be the next note she reads from me.

For the record, I am cross-posting this on a couple other forums as well. Thanks, guys!

If you enjoyed reading about "Trying to reason with a pro-ban "pro-2a" soon-to-be-former friend..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rookorami
January 9, 2013, 07:20 PM
I think you have a well reasoned e-mail. Giving sources and information. At this time I personally cannot think of what to add.

rondog
January 9, 2013, 07:23 PM
You can't teach a pig to sing.

JFtheGR8
January 9, 2013, 07:39 PM
I've always said that when trying to polish a turd you just end up with (poop) on your hands.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

rookorami
January 9, 2013, 07:43 PM
It may seem futile but why not try. It is a terrible tragedy those children were killed by a murderer. We need people to look past emotion and consider facts and listen to reason.

larryh1108
January 9, 2013, 08:51 PM
Some people, especially stubborn, educated people, can't be reasoned with. They feel that since they are educated and smart that their conclusion is the right one no matter how much data you provide otherwise. You end up beating your head against the wall in the process. The only thing you end up with is a headache.

Nice email, BTW. You said all you need to say to sway someone with an open mind. Some minds are closed, locked, welded and buried in the sand. They can't be talked to. We have several fine examples spread across the country of these types of people.

Diamondback6
January 9, 2013, 09:57 PM
Mods, thanks for the move--I thought this could be considered Activism because if I could jar her back to her senses, it might be possible to use similar techniques to start peeling the rest of the pro-gun lefties off from their support. We need to make Gun Control politically radioactive on BOTH sides of the aisle, right?

And if we can turn people from DiFi and Pelosi's own back yard... *evil cackle*

sonick808
January 9, 2013, 10:14 PM
I have lost one of my closest friends since childhood due to him steering every conversation back to my ownership of guns. I know this doesn't help your letter, but I want you to know you're not alone.

Walter
January 9, 2013, 10:17 PM
I think it's a well-thought-out and well-written letter. I really like this part;


By the way, the shooter at Sandy Hook was an undiagnosed schiozophrenic who had his family hiding him rather than getting him the care he NEEDED, because they're a Money/Socialite Family (dad is a VP at GE) and didn't want to be ostracized from their precious snob-circuit... and one of the people on Biden's task-force is a cop whose own son is a thwarted wannabe Spree Killer.


But it has been my experience that logic seldom overcomes emotion, and emotion is what most of the "do-gooder gun ban-ers" are running on these days.

I hope your friend sees the sensibilities of your position, but when young kids get shot down like they did at Sandy Hook, emotion can be a powerful force.
Good luck.

Walter

Diamondback6
January 9, 2013, 10:29 PM
Yeah, the nasty part is that before she turned we were able to put our Left/Right differences aside and I was even open to the possibility of having kids with her someday. Now, though...

Larry, be careful, I AM one of those "stubborn educated people" LOL--it's just that I took away different lessons as a History major than everybody else... that the very nature of government itself is to be an evil powergrabbing crapsack unless continually challenged on it by a populace that can use all FOUR boxes of resistance effectively.

Re pointing out Peter Lanza's wealth and VP of Finance gig at GE, I figured if I tried to sneak in an appeal to her "1%" bullcrap, that might be another chink in her armor to soften her up by...

Sock Puppet
January 9, 2013, 10:37 PM
It may seem futile but why not try. It is a terrible tragedy those children were killed by a murderer. We need people to look past emotion and consider facts and listen to reason.

Agreed.

BLB68
January 9, 2013, 10:37 PM
The tone of the letter was a bit agitated IMO. When dealing with a loved one (". . .I was even open to the possibility of having kids with her someday."), I've found it's better to take a more detached approach and let the facts speak for themselves. If they trot out an anti-gun talking point, counter with facts, not emotion. Seems like you got riled up a bit, and that can't be good for any relationship.

KTXdm9
January 9, 2013, 11:04 PM
The tone of the letter was a bit agitated IMO. When dealing with a loved one (". . .I was even open to the possibility of having kids with her someday."), I've found it's better to take a more detached approach and let the facts speak for themselves. If they trot out an anti-gun talking point, counter with facts, not emotion. Seems like you got riled up a bit, and that can't be good for any relationship.
This. Take out the emotion and bury her in logic and facts. Her response will tell you if she is a lost cause or not.

LubeckTech
January 9, 2013, 11:04 PM
The bottom line in the Sandy Hook incident is this young man was going to do harm to innocent children who did nothing to deserve it. If he didn't have access to any type of firearm his mother would surely still be dead as she was taken totally by suprise as she slept. Maybe with no gun access no children would have perished just been badly hurt or perhaps fewer or maybe MORE - bottom line is this kid was going to do something. Maybe it would have been with a car or molotov cocktail or disconnected gas line there are many ways to create mayhen. It's is a hard heart that kills and this miscreant was out to hurt children one way or another. Had a responsible person been carrying that day the outcome would have been different.

Diamondback6
January 9, 2013, 11:06 PM
BLB, for the record, that may not mean as much as you're reading into it--we had been close, as much so as an Internet contact can be anyway... but not really "intimate"; for me "would I be comfortable with the idea of her as the mother of my children?" is my FIRST litmus test when considering the "Would I Date Her?" question. Second is "Do I trust her to be responsible around my irons, and be able to extract herself and any kids we may have from a hostile situation while I Hold The Line and provide cover if required?"

Yeah, maybe I'm a little irritable--we had an understanding about not arguing on our respective Hill To Die On issues, like how I find the partial-birth abortion she considers the sacrament of her Democrat cult-faith grotesque and even ghoulish, and SHE welshed on that deal and initiated the argument with me knowing that she was backing me into a corner.

It also doesn't help that I do come off a bit cold a lot... I remember one case in college when there was a discussion about 9/11 in the cafeteria and I cause everybody else to light up an argument because of my breaking the numbers down on how a sufficiently motivated group of passengers could retake a 767 and ending with "5 to 1, numbers are still good, Rush The Bastards."

BLB68
January 9, 2013, 11:45 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Diamondback. However, I'll let my suggestion stand. Still no point in burning bridges.

My brother has been living in NJ since the 80s (military, went to work for his civilian counterparts when he got out), and we had a bit of a go around on the subject the other day. He's one of those "If you can't hit them with ten shots, you're not qualified to own a gun," and "nobody needs an AR" types nowadays. Didn't get riled up, but gave him some information to chew on.

Not that the above is an indictment of NJ, but his attitudes have changed over the years to those that are prevalent in that part of the country.

Diamondback6
January 10, 2013, 12:07 AM
Right, amigo, I take your point--and am trying to address it, but she does need to know that she's risking torching the bridge by her own actions, that if we were in contract negotiations this would be the Last Best Offer stage. It's damn painful having to do this, believe me, and I'm not choosing my words lightly... while I'm not an AR15 guy, my uncle's Garand and M1 Carbine and my 1911 are my "My Cold Dead Fingers" guns, and even if neither were specifically marked by name or feature in any of the bans that are currently being drafted in this round of proposals they WILL be in the next, so my own best line of defense is to remember that "we either hang together or hang separately" and choose my actions and positions accordingly, because if I refuse to stand for others then when the come for me I wouldn't DESERVE for anyone to stand up for me even if there were anyone left to do so.

Ieyasu
January 10, 2013, 12:30 AM
Diamondback6, is she for banning all guns or "just" certain semi-automatic firearms? I'd base one's approach on that answer.

r1derbike
January 10, 2013, 12:33 AM
I'm old. Long ago, I decided trying to convert anyone to agree with my personal beliefs, convictions and life's lessons was a lost cause. I am married, happily. We both have our beliefs, interests, and passions, but we don't try to force them on each other, because there is mutual respect, and the need to allow each personal space to be our own special beings.

It's the same as women who try to change we men. We are totally different in our makeup. Our brains are wired differently. There is no changing us, except to be accepting of our loved ones' place in the world, and whatever it is that makes them happy. That isn't them changing us, that's being an unselfish life partner.

In younger days, long ago, I was intolerant of anyone who did not share my interests or outlook on life. It caused many breakups, as many of my lady friends were equally intolerant as well.

You grow-up, mature, and see that life is not all about you (me).

There are far more important things in life to enjoy, than tit-for-tat fights about divisive issues.

Just some ramblings from an old man. Ridicule me if you want, my skin is thick, and my breath of an ox.

Diamondback6
January 10, 2013, 12:54 AM
'Bike, if this last attempt fails, I'm not trying to change her, just to tell her that if we can't go back to "status quo" of "I don't poke sticks in your cage and you don't in mine" that it may be time for us to part ways.

I don't care if she agrees with me (like I said, though I strongly disagree with her on abortion issues I at least don't poke her on them), just that she NOT keep trying to cram her new position down my throat and trying to beat me into submission on it, and that IF things were to go anywhere she would have to be able to suck it up and at least TOLERATE my irons. That's all anyone can really expect of another, isn't it?

1911 guy
January 10, 2013, 01:04 AM
Two things I'd consider.

One, make the e-mail as detached and impersonal as if you were writing it to a stranger. The references to "your idiots in Ca.", while probably sorrect, are accusatory and she, by default of human reaction, will become defensive. That puts her in a less than concilliatory and open-mined mode.

Second, accomplished by the first point, if there is to be a bridge burned, let her be the one to set it alight. She then will have no option to say to herself or anyone else "Well, HE did and said such and such".

Diamondback6
January 10, 2013, 02:46 AM
Working on it, 1911 guy... just edited OP to current revision in progress. :)

Pilot
January 10, 2013, 06:08 AM
I don't understand how some 2A supporters can be for banning arms that specifically lend themselves to the true intent of the 2A. Self defense and defense against a tyrannical, over controlling, abusive, and non-representative government.

No matter how much you tell them it is not about hunting nor sporting firearms to seems to fall upon deaf ears.

JKHolman
January 10, 2013, 06:57 AM
Diamondback6,
you need to treat this like evangelism. Keep your message free of emotion. Present your argument in a clear and concise manner, and let her sleep on what you have said. The more you push it, the likelier you are of losing the person. And for goodness' sake do not resort to name calling (even of persons whom you two mutually disapprove).

Isaac-1
January 10, 2013, 07:16 AM
One thing I have found over the years when talking with young women of a certain age range is that their hormones effect their decision process far more than they will generally admit. Try pointing out things like the story last weekend of the woman in Georgia that shot the intruder with 5 out of 6 rounds from her revolver while protecting her 2 children just to have the guy get up and try to drive off. Or the story of the young recent widdow with her infant child in Oklahoma last New Years (2012) being on the phone for 20+ minutes with 911 as a guy beat down the door to her mobile home ...

mcdonl
January 10, 2013, 08:39 AM
I have anti gun friends too. We just dont talk about guns so it is a non issue.

BrooksD
January 10, 2013, 09:26 AM
It would help to know what angle she is taking in her anti stance. Is she a "ban all firearms" type? Or is she "ban scary looking black rifles because the founders couldn't have envisioned them" type? Is magazine size her issue? Does she get hung up on the "militia clause"? Something else? I've found that every argument they have can be counter pointed with logic, statistics and examples but it helps to know what the main hang up is first.

gossamer
January 10, 2013, 11:09 AM
My hope is that you can enlighten this person through this email (are more importantly through a personal interaction (at a range, etc.). I also hope you can maintain a friendship and create more of a conversation than an internet argument. To that end, a few suggestions:

1) Do not open with a dis. It's never a good tact. "You probably think anything outside the Ivy League..." is just a thinly veiled way of saying "you're an elitist ******* who clings too strongly to your convictions while I'm reasonable because I cling strongly to mine." Honestly, that line makes you sound petulant, like an Internet Aruger rather than a citizen concerned with the truth and fact.

Why not just open with your agenda? "This information is from a reputable source and I hope you read it so you gain some clarity on my position..." and continue.

2) The Janet Reno thing. Why is it important to you that someone on "her side" recant what Reno said? Why is that even pertinent to the discussion you are having with her? Is your friend accountable for something Reno said 15-20 years ago? (Hint: she's not.) Why even bring this up with her? It' evidences nothing pertinent to the utility of RKBA. It doesn't shed a bit of light on your agenda which is getting her to realize the sensibility of what you are saying about a ban.

3) You talk about taxes, immigration, spending, etc.. Why? I thought we were talking about the RKBA? Again, you're attacking her for things others have done, and your stated goal -- in the title of your post -- is to "reason with her" about the second amendment. I find that when someone is trying to reason with another person, there is absolutely no need to bring up ancillary issues. "But you said I could have a new bicycle! Great, what's that have to do with cleaning your room?"


Stick to the issue of the RKBA. Don't let her distract you or be distracted by these other issues. Why? Because RKBA is supposed to be bigger than politics. It's supposed to be bigger than ideology. If you entangle it with these things then it becomes indistinguishable from them and just becomes some petty, political issue rather than the Right granted to us under the Constitution.


4) By the way, the shooter at Sandy Hook was an undiagnosed schiozophrenic who had his family hiding him rather than getting him the care he NEEDED, because they're a Money/Socialite Family

I want to see citations for this because to date there is absolutely zero objective, clinical, forensic proof of Adam Lanza's psychological status. Speculation? Yes, from unnamed neighborhood friends, an unnamed son of a pastor, and an unnamed LE Official. There has been no clinical assessment of his brain, no history of psychiatric treatment, diagnosis, or assessment. There is speculation from unnamed, untrained, and unverifiable sources.

Within the context of RKBA, where we hold other people to a standard of showing actual evidence for their positions, to throw out there something like this is irresponsible and hypocritical. And, again, it simply detracts from the facts you CAN and HAVE supported.



Finally, the last paragraph where you "withdraw the range invitation" -- sorry, but it just sounds petulant (again). Logic isn't dictating she shouldn't benefit from the things she thinks people should not have, you are. Do you REALLY want to "disinvite her" and thwart what enlightenment may come from a range visit?



I would wager lunch on one thing -- there is more clarity to be gained (for her and you) from your personal interaction with one another at a range than there is from some email either of you send, no matter how well that email gets vetted by the choir.

22-rimfire
January 10, 2013, 12:53 PM
Let's hope that we have some time for emotions to decrease and people settle into their basic beliefs again. But the anti-politicians with Press support are certainly going to try to feed the emotion flame as much as possible. All you have to do is look at the constant flow of stories about gun control with little opposing view points other than painting the opposing view points as out of touch, or favoring baby killers or something. The fact is, most of these anti-gun people do in fact favor killing babies. So, there you go...

fxstchewy
January 10, 2013, 01:26 PM
I'm old. Long ago, I decided trying to convert anyone to agree with my personal beliefs, convictions and life's lessons was a lost cause. I am married, happily. We both have our beliefs, interests, and passions, but we don't try to force them on each other, because there is mutual respect, and the need to allow each personal space to be our own special beings.

It's the same as women who try to change we men. We are totally different in our makeup. Our brains are wired differently. There is no changing us, except to be accepting of our loved ones' place in the world, and whatever it is that makes them happy. That isn't them changing us, that's being an unselfish life partner.

In younger days, long ago, I was intolerant of anyone who did not share my interests or outlook on life. It caused many breakups, as many of my lady friends were equally intolerant as well.

You grow-up, mature, and see that life is not all about you (me).

There are far more important things in life to enjoy, than tit-for-tat fights about divisive issues.

Just some ramblings from an old man. Ridicule me if you want, my skin is thick, and my breath of an ox.

That my Friend was Very Good advice for All to read, Thanks for the post.

dancer
January 10, 2013, 07:05 PM
A "good" discussion or argument is worth having, but I'm guessing that you are mentally at the right place in your anticipation of what to expect from it.

I don't believe that our rights to keep and bear arms are in serious jeopardy (but I will still be vigilant). I'm probably in the minority on this forum, but I really don't care about military-style weapons whatever names they carry -- "assault", "semi-automatic" (that one is scary!), or whatnot. I don't own any, don't need any, have never wanted any.

However, since limiting those weapons would be an erosion of our right, I'm against it. Ask your friend which of her precious possessions, or rights (to be in the same ballpark) she is willing to leave lying out in the weather to rust and erode just because someone objected to it. Does she have a Harley? Is it loud? Does someone object? Yes? Is she willing to abandon it to the elements?

Take the word "gun" away from the issue -- what are her proposals for dealing with "violence"?

Tirod
January 10, 2013, 08:15 PM
Let me get some clues, hmm, trying to shock some sense into her, send her an email, and the plan was to engage in a long term relationship and beget children.

Nope. Words from a veteran husband, ain't gonna happen. Don't Even Try. You are reacting to her reacting, and the scenario is all about emotions, not cool dispassionate logical thought.

I got into a discussion with a former neighbor who stopped into the store, he started up about nobody needs 30 round mags, these are weapons of mass destruction, blah blah blah. I'm on the clock, I'm NOT going to create a hot line call to Corporate, so I have NO choice but to endure politely and be calm.

Point there, Keep Calm and Reload. I took the circumstances not as a personal attack (he did when I quietly disagreed,) but considered what he was saying and how to answer. I answered his falsehoods with facts - a weapon of mass destruction is not a firearm, the BATF makes that distinction, not the press, along with the specific distinction that assault rifles are full auto and have been under controls since 1934, and no new ones made for civilian sales since 1984. As for the 30 round part, I reminded him that they will always be available simply because their are millions. Even more, so will AR15's - Many DON'T use 30 round mags hunting, most states limit capacity in season to five or ten. And so forth.

Boring facts delivered with almost a monotone voice, as if answering a teens questions about life from the perspective of The Dos Equis Man. Regardless of gender, at that point I felt like one of us was being an old woman, and the other was the Retired Reserve, Veteran, who's been there, done that.

If you plan on addressing it all, it needs to be with a certain measure of disappointment - because the long term effort will be to minimize her becoming a drama queen about whatever the latest media circus is focused on. Her behavior to the event is an honest emotion - get used to the female of the species reacting when children are threatened. That cannot be changed. What can be done is to not get emotionally involved with her emotional involvement, and even show her that kind of behavior isn't welcome. In a polite, loving way.

This won't be the last difference of opinion you might ever have, consider the circumstance where a guy like me might be getting a retirement check he could apply toward building a kit car before he gets to old to work on it, and she thinks Easy Street and lots of money are at her disposal. That's less than 60 days away. Hmm.

Remember, I'm pulling for ya, we're all in this together.

Diamondback6
January 11, 2013, 05:21 AM
Idea for a less heated alternate tack... given that all I own is a 1911 and a 10/22 (the actual Garand and Carbine that Uncle Frank used are lost to the sands of time, but it is important to me that someday I will own a set that he could not tell from his own) and that she CLAIMS to specifically support handgun ownership and carry for self-defense, maybe see if my old instructor and I could set up an appointment next time she's in the area, bring a whole pile of iron and just when she gets to the point of having fun spring the "Oh by the way, everything you've handled today is on Feinstein and McCarthy's ban lists by name or feature..." I mean, do even liberals have the reaction that when you discover you REALLY like something and somebody else REALLY wants you to not have it by force of law that it really cheeses ya off?

If you enjoyed reading about "Trying to reason with a pro-ban "pro-2a" soon-to-be-former friend..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!