I've been debating with a few anti gun people lately


PDA






lionking
January 18, 2013, 12:39 AM
On a couple forums. There have been a couple with good knowledge about guns and respond polite who take their opinion for whatever reason but I got to say the vast majority of them deflect the issue, use insults instead of challenging what they have been asked or shown, and who use stupid responses or questions like " should you be able to own a nuke then?"

One of their most common responses is " the founders couldn't have envisioned such modern lethal firearms therefore the 2nd is outdated". Which I then respond " well if true then they couldn't have envisioned internet, TV and radio so therefore the 1st is outdated so should certain entertainers and radio people be fingerprinted and registered or banned and should certain video games be banned?"

I don't support such measures but just saying. They won't respond to that though, they go back to deflecting and insulting. Don't bother trying to change these people's mind or show them the deceit that people like Cuomo or Feinstein use, you'll be wasting your time.

I DID reach a co-worker who is a Obama supporter because of other issues though for him it being healthcare, I did reach him to understand the deceit and lies of anti-gunners so use your time on the unknowing and middle ground people instead. Forget about debating hardened anti gun people, use your time for better things like looking for the last .223 or 9mm in country.;)

If you enjoyed reading about "I've been debating with a few anti gun people lately" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
gearjammer-2000
January 18, 2013, 12:50 AM
quite honestly I have found that I am not debating with the anti's
its more like arguing with idiots

lionking
January 18, 2013, 12:58 AM
^ Idiots who support very shrewd and deceitful politicians like Cuomo and Feinstein, remember the scene in the one Star Wars movie " this is how the republic dies, with thunderous applause".

Cesiumsponge
January 18, 2013, 01:04 AM
"If you are for gun control, then you're not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. You'll need to go around, pass laws, and shoot people who resist, kick in doors, and throw people in jail, and so on; rip up families, just to take away guns. So it's not that you're anti-gun, because [...] you'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns, so you're very pro-gun, you just believe that only the government (which is of course so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward-thinking) should be allowed to have guns. So there's no such thing as gun control, there's only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions. Gun control is a misnomer." Stefan Molyneux

Clean97GTI
January 18, 2013, 02:00 AM
The most logically fallacious arguments I have encountered have not been on Democratic Underground.

They have been right here.

Twiki357
January 18, 2013, 02:12 AM
Debating with a gun control advocate is like talking to a brick wall. Every so often you may find a loose brick, but the wall never moves.

Baba Louie
January 18, 2013, 05:11 AM
Whenever debating with anti rights people, always consider that not all of the original 13 colonies would even ratify the BORs. So the anti right's crowd have always been among us and always will be.

Simply ask them, "Do you believe in inalienable rights? Do you own any arms?" follow up with Voltaires quote, "I believe in your right to free speech and while I do not agree with what you say, would fight and defend your right to the death." Because that will make you stand out from them and their crowd who cannot fight or defend others freedoms and rights. In fact they would prefer taking away rights of others first (perhaps... apparently) to make "their" lives "safe and secure" and screw Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Sad that.

radiotom
January 18, 2013, 06:22 AM
The most logically fallacious arguments I have encountered have not been on Democratic Underground.

They have been right here.
Name some, please.

Ohio Gun Guy
January 18, 2013, 06:49 AM
^ stop with that, we've all seen it.

Try the most popular thread going right now if you want a cited example, "NCIS"

Please cite where you got "Name some please" from. Mr. 118 posts who is challenging something specific regarding common themes here. troll much?

radiotom
January 18, 2013, 07:06 AM
^ stop with that, we've all seen it.

Try the most popular thread going right now if you want a cited example, "NCIS"

Please cite where you got "Name some please" from. Mr. 118 posts who is challenging something specific regarding common themes here. troll much?
Difficult to respond to a comment so asinine, but let me try.

The democratic underground is pretty notorious for having despicable and illogical comments posted. I would simply like to see a small comparison of this and THR. Any website that allows anonymous comments will have stupid things posted. I think the mods do a pretty good job of cleaning up the crap here.

Not to mention, if you think the situation here is on par with the democratic underground why do you frequent THR?

Ohio Gun Guy
January 18, 2013, 07:18 AM
I know not this other site you troll of. Nice cozy up to the mods maneuver.

Robert
January 18, 2013, 07:23 AM
I'd like to see a citation of these "logically fallacious" arguments. Does my request count? If someone is going to say that DU is more enlightened than THR or that the arguments on DU are more logical I'd like some specific examples to compare. It is the responcibility of the one makeing a claim to support their claim.

ol' scratch
January 18, 2013, 08:23 AM
When it was still raw I was arguing with these people. I came to the conclusion that my time is better spent researching ways of thwarting their laws through civil disobedience, writing representatives and congressmen, thinking of ways to organize protests, and trying to discuss the issue with some of the FUDDS in my family to garner their support. The fools online are often trolls anyway. The more you feed them, the more they act like fools.

ball3006
January 18, 2013, 11:10 AM
I say I am for gun control. With gun control, I am able to hit the bullseye of the target. They just walk away.....chris3

akv3g4n
January 18, 2013, 11:22 AM
I never understand the argument that the founders couldn't have known what future weapons would be developed so the 2nd amendment is no longer applicable to many modern firearms. Many of our founding fathers were inventors, entrepreneurs and innovators in their time. I'm pretty sure that people of their intelligence and determination were keenly aware of what the future of weapons development could bring.

radiotom
January 18, 2013, 11:24 AM
I never understand the argument that the founders couldn't have known what future weapons would be developed so the 2nd amendment is no longer applicable to many modern firearms. Many of our founding fathers were inventors, entrepreneurs and innovators in their time. I'm pretty sure that people of their intelligence and determination were keenly aware of what the future of weapons development could bring.
I'm sure the thought of the government having those weapons and nobody else made them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

GAF
January 18, 2013, 11:38 AM
I debate, I do not argue. I debate with facts, logic and reason. If the other side of the argument does not want to have a civil discussion then I will not engage them at all. I`ll not be baited in their illogical unworkable schemes and talk.

JustinJ
January 18, 2013, 11:56 AM
There have been a couple with good knowledge about guns and respond polite who take their opinion for whatever reason but I got to say the vast majority of them deflect the issue, use insults instead of challenging what they have been asked or shown

Um, read the posts in this thread. Oh, the irony.

SoCalNoMore
January 18, 2013, 12:10 PM
I would like to offer my thoughts on this. If the person allows you to talk without interrupting, I ask them this;

Do you feel you are immune to crimes committed against you? Are you immune to someone breaking in to your home?

What would you do if you are watching a movie on Friday night with your wife and children and someone knocks on the door, as you open it they kick it in. Are you going to run to a phone or reach for your gun that is under the couch? If you are a person that chooses to not have a gun, what would you do?

Guns are not just about protection, hunting or sport. They are about individual sovereignty.

In California where I grew up, in 1995 home invasion robberies in and around Whittier went from 1 a month to 3-5 a week because of the AWB.

One last thought. When I was in the Sheriff's academy in San Bernardino, CA back in 1995 we were often trained in "scenarios" to help us prepare for the real world. During our crimes against person class we were told a story from the DA about a man that liked to have guns.

Here is that story;

A regular guy like us just got married. His wife wanted to have children, as did he. She stated that before they have kids, she would like to have the house gun free because as a child her brother at 5yo accidently discharged a .22 cal revolver in the house. Being a loving husband, he said he would lock up the guns, but she stood her ground. He sold the guns. about 10 months later the couple was sleeping in the middle class suburban home when 3 men broke in. They beat the husband and tied him up. Proceeded to sexually assault his wife while he watched. The assault was so bad she could no longer bear children.

I ask any of you, could you live with yourself if this happened to you?

SoCalNoMore
January 18, 2013, 12:13 PM
When it was still raw I was arguing with these people. I came to the conclusion that my time is better spent researching ways of thwarting their laws through civil disobedience, writing representatives and congressmen, thinking of ways to organize protests, and trying to discuss the issue with some of the FUDDS in my family to garner their support. The fools online are often trolls anyway. The more you feed them, the more they act like fools.
This is exactly what I did/am doing. My time is too valuable to spend it debating with closed minded people that are uninformed.

We used to say that people like this have minds like cement. All mixed up and already set.

SoCalNoMore
January 18, 2013, 12:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGaDAThOHhA

A good video to watch. I hear a lot of people say we need to be like Australia with gun control. I think, NOT.

gossamer
January 18, 2013, 12:27 PM
On a couple forums. There have been a couple with good knowledge about guns and respond polite who take their opinion for whatever reason but I got to say the vast majority of them deflect the issue, use insults instead of challenging what they have been asked or shown, and who use stupid responses or questions

Both sides are guilty of same. I've read some of the same kinds of rhetorical "Tactics" coming from Pro (The NRA) and Con (The Brady Cult) 2A folks. It's part of the landscape, unfortunately.

One of their most common responses is " the founders couldn't have envisioned such modern lethal firearms therefore the 2nd is outdated". Which I then respond " well if true then they couldn't have envisioned internet, TV and radio so therefore the 1st is outdated so should certain entertainers and radio people be fingerprinted and registered or banned and should certain video games be banned?"


I respectfully suggest that what "The Founders" thought about guns largely ends up being a "push." The founders denied gun ownership to slaves, free blacks, and law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution. They also required the purchase of guns. 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man purchase a gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and registered on public rolls.


Founders' intent cuts both ways.

morcey2
January 18, 2013, 12:57 PM
What would you do if you are watching a movie on Friday night with your wife and children and someone knocks on the door, as you open it they kick it in. Are you going to run to a phone or reach for your gun that is always on my person? If you are a person that chooses to not have a gun, what would you do?


Fixed it for ya.

Clean97GTI
January 18, 2013, 01:30 PM
I'd like to see a citation of these "logically fallacious" arguments. Does my request count? If someone is going to say that DU is more enlightened than THR or that the arguments on DU are more logical I'd like some specific examples to compare. It is the responcibility of the one makeing a claim to support their claim.

That thread you locked last night had a slew of them.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8662707&postcount=202
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8662678&postcount=194

Both of those implied some doom and gloom scenario of gun confiscations stemming from background checks yet when called on it, never offered any evidence to back it up. The ONLY attempt at it came from a third person who posted a picture of various dictators, none of whom were Americans. The attempt was half-hearted and blatantly faulty in that none of these countries enjoyed the legal protections of firearm ownership that Americans do. Most of them do not have a constitution in place or were the subjects of military coups.

I even cited current registration schemes that have not lead to confiscation.

When crime statistics were brought up, the example of Los Angeles came forward. I quickly destroyed that by pointing out Houston has a larger violent crime problem than Los Angeles. This should not be the case if guns in the hands of citizens really do prevent crime.


The trouble here is that the same premise gets used over and over. The premise is that if one law is failing to prevent crime, why should another law succeed. While on its face, this seems valid, all it serves to accomplish is...nothing. It isn't an actual argument. They haven't countered the opposition.


The biggest problem here is that such arguments, when applied to a national stage, offer no solution to gun violence. More comprehensive screenings of gun buyers might yield a few more guns kept out of the hands of criminals. More importantly, it is a seemingly meaningful concession that may be of little actual use but it puts the ball back in the hands of the pro-gun groups. Now we can use our concession to begin something truly useful like the legalization and regulation of drug sales. The strengthening of social programs to actually fight poverty.

While not popular topics in conservative circles, they have a much larger impact on criminal behavior which we all know to be the real problem. Guns simply make it easier to kill the member of an opposing gang. You can take the guns away from them but you still leave the gang bangers. Start by removing the things they fight over and they won't fight over them. Begin to improve their social and economic standing and you'll find the gangs aren't as attractive.

but I had to constantly go back and beat down the same tired arguments so the thread degenerated into clusterf***.

Fleetwood_Captain
January 18, 2013, 01:47 PM
Although the founding fathers wouldn't have been able to take modern weapons completely into consideration, they surely would not have been oblivious to the notion of advances like repeating firearms.

Although black powder firearms of their time were somewhat primitive by today's standards, Air Guns were different. Air guns in the 1700's shot bullets at comparable velocities to black powder and were quite advanced for their day.

The first repeating rifle was an Air Rifle, The Girandoni. The Girandoni had a 21 round magazine, with an interchangeable air reservoir that was said to be good for 30 shots. It had been in use by the Austrian military for 8 years by the time the US Constitution was ratified.

Compared to other rifles, the Girandoni was the "assault weapon" of it's day. Yet I don't recall any of the founding fathers calling the government to ban this item.

JERRY
January 18, 2013, 01:52 PM
if somebody voted for obama its because theyre politically ignorant or truly believe in karl marx thinking......this does not include those on welfare.

SoCalNoMore
January 18, 2013, 03:01 PM
if somebody voted for obama its because theyre politically ignorant or truly believe in karl marx thinking......this does not include those on welfare.
Then you just ruled out most of his voters

phillipduran
January 18, 2013, 03:34 PM
In response to someone who would say the founders could not have envisioned how firearms would evolve, I would say it doesn't matter because the purpose is for us to defend ourselves against a military or police force that could be used against us. As our military and polices forces get more powerful individual weapons so should the weapons of the people to maintain the balance of power between standing armies and police forces.

This kills the chances of the military or police being told to round us up or take control of us. Modern day weapons in the hands of individuals helps to secure our freedom without even firing a shot.

mrvco
January 18, 2013, 04:01 PM
...

The trouble here is that the same premise gets used over and over. The premise is that if one law is failing to prevent crime, why should another law succeed. While on its face, this seems valid, all it serves to accomplish is...nothing. It isn't an actual argument. They haven't countered the opposition.

The biggest problem here is that such arguments, when applied to a national stage, offer no solution to gun violence. More comprehensive screenings of gun buyers might yield a few more guns kept out of the hands of criminals. More importantly, it is a seemingly meaningful concession that may be of little actual use but it puts the ball back in the hands of the pro-gun groups. Now we can use our concession to begin something truly useful like the legalization and regulation of drug sales. The strengthening of social programs to actually fight poverty.

While not popular topics in conservative circles, they have a much larger impact on criminal behavior which we all know to be the real problem. Guns simply make it easier to kill the member of an opposing gang. You can take the guns away from them but you still leave the gang bangers. Start by removing the things they fight over and they won't fight over them. Begin to improve their social and economic standing and you'll find the gangs aren't as attractive.

but I had to constantly go back and beat down the same tired arguments so the thread degenerated into clusterf***.


I'd say that the net is that "the genie is long out of the bottle" as it were, and (while obvious) any sort of prohibition, e.g. alcohol, drugs, guns or whatever, takes the offending item out of law abiding hands and creates an illicit market for it, while leaving it in the hands of criminals, regardless of whether the person possessing it was a criminal before the ban or not.

The unique aspect of "personal weapons", whether they be guns, swords, knives or whatever, unlike other items that the government may try to prohibit, they are commonly and regularly used defensively by law abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families and their property, both actively and as a deterrent.

Arguing over 30-round vs. 10-round vs. 7-round magazines or "this gun" vs. "that gun" just ends up being a deteriorating and defeatist argument. Why? Because once you ban 30-round mags, you've set a precedent that when someone commits a crime with a 10-round mag, the logical solution is to ban 10-round mags and so on and so forth... the fact remains, any effective weapon is "dangerous", that's the entire point, and it is the person behind that weapon that determines why and whether it is wielded for good or otherwise.

One also has to remember that you are typically "debating" with people that have embraced victimhood and whose idea of home and self defense is (with any luck) frantically dialing 911 and capitulating until law enforcement arrives to save the day... any 30-rounds vs 10-rounds or AR vs. 6-shot revolver argument is completely lost on such a person.

Tcruse
January 18, 2013, 04:22 PM
There are as many opinions on this stuff as there are people. Everyone has some "element" of truth in their opinion but there are no silver bullets. I personally have no problem with background checks as long as it does not lead to registratration of all firearms and that guns can be given or willed to family members. The other danger of backround checks on all transfers is that using "medical information" or "prescription information" will prevent people that need treatment to not get it and it removes a persons rights without due process. If we are forced to accept universal backround checks we need to add a lot of more protections against mis-use of information and better methods of appeal and restoration of rights.
My preference would be for all of these "proposed" changes to just die without getting up for a vote in congress.

Guy B. Meredith
January 18, 2013, 05:37 PM
Frankly, I don't even like the 2A argument as we shouldn't even need it. Individual freedoms practiced responsibly need to be accommodated period. No justification is needed where no harm is done.

The hard core antis are outright bigots and refuse to see the world any other way than through their stereotypes and prejudices. Big one right now is "Gun ownership and safety for children are incompatible"--you are a child killer. Ownership=violence in their minds. No attempt at connecting real world dots.

There was a news report about 1994 that a group of moms were going to do a door to door in favor of firearms ban. Then they decided against it as they might come to the home of a firearms owner and get shot. Victims of their own gullibility.

RustyHammer
January 18, 2013, 06:14 PM
A "must read" - especially if debating:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=8664093

KTXdm9
January 18, 2013, 06:24 PM
That thread you locked last night had a slew of them.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8662707&postcount=202
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8662678&postcount=194

Both of those implied some doom and gloom scenario of gun confiscations stemming from background checks yet when called on it, never offered any evidence to back it up. The ONLY attempt at it came from a third person who posted a picture of various dictators, none of whom were Americans. The attempt was half-hearted and blatantly faulty in that none of these countries enjoyed the legal protections of firearm ownership that Americans do. Most of them do not have a constitution in place or were the subjects of military coups.

I even cited current registration schemes that have not lead to confiscation.

When crime statistics were brought up, the example of Los Angeles came forward. I quickly destroyed that by pointing out Houston has a larger violent crime problem than Los Angeles. This should not be the case if guns in the hands of citizens really do prevent crime.


The trouble here is that the same premise gets used over and over. The premise is that if one law is failing to prevent crime, why should another law succeed. While on its face, this seems valid, all it serves to accomplish is...nothing. It isn't an actual argument. They haven't countered the opposition.


The biggest problem here is that such arguments, when applied to a national stage, offer no solution to gun violence. More comprehensive screenings of gun buyers might yield a few more guns kept out of the hands of criminals. More importantly, it is a seemingly meaningful concession that may be of little actual use but it puts the ball back in the hands of the pro-gun groups. Now we can use our concession to begin something truly useful like the legalization and regulation of drug sales. The strengthening of social programs to actually fight poverty.

While not popular topics in conservative circles, they have a much larger impact on criminal behavior which we all know to be the real problem. Guns simply make it easier to kill the member of an opposing gang. You can take the guns away from them but you still leave the gang bangers. Start by removing the things they fight over and they won't fight over them. Begin to improve their social and economic standing and you'll find the gangs aren't as attractive.

but I had to constantly go back and beat down the same tired arguments so the thread degenerated into clusterf***.
Ah yes, appeasement and socialism. Clearly they both have a track record of raging success in Europe.

Deanimator
January 18, 2013, 06:36 PM
You can't convert a hardcore anti any more than you can convert a hard core Holocaust denier. They're too invested in their own psychopathologies, either for ideological or financial reasons.

You can convert observers:

Refute EVERYTHING the antis say. Don't let them define the terminology or the terms of debate. Correct them EVERY time they misuse words.
Expose EVERY lie they tell. Throw their own words back in their faces at EVERY opportunity.
Expose their motivations. Lots of them are racists, misogynists and the like. Rub their noses in it EVERY chance you get.

I've been fighting them on and offline for a VERY long time. Their greatest weakness, apart from their colossal ignorance, is their colossal arrogance. They're often totally bewildered by direct confrontation and refusal to play their game. You're just supposed to roll over for them. When you don't, it often destroys their morale.

No matter what, NEVER give up.

Clean97GTI
January 18, 2013, 06:37 PM
Ah yes, appeasement and socialism. Clearly they both have a track record of raging success in Europe.

Nobody is talking about appeasement and I don't think you want to get into the socialism argument here. Plenty of countries in Europe with standards of living meeting or exceeding our own. "Socialism" on this board rarely seems to match the definition most other places know it by. Indeed, here it simply seems to mean "any government spending I don't agree with."

splattergun
January 18, 2013, 06:45 PM
Originally Posted by akv3g4n
"I never understand the argument that the founders couldn't have known what future weapons would be developed so the 2nd amendment is no longer applicable to many modern firearms. Many of our founding fathers were inventors, entrepreneurs and innovators in their time. I'm pretty sure that people of their intelligence and determination were keenly aware of what the future of weapons development could bring.

I'm sure the thought of the government having those weapons and nobody else made them feel all warm and fuzzy inside."

The Founding Fathers were intelligent, wise men. One need only read a few of the their letters arguing for and against adoption of the BOR to understand that they believed without a doubt that progress would lead to increasingly dangerous weapons.

They, as a group with individual exceptions, also understood that opening the door to liberty also meant opening the door to a certain element of evil. THey believed, as a group, that the guarantee of personal liberty was paramount to security. They KNEW that with the freedom of speech would come those who would speak evil against them. They KNEW with the freedom of arms would come those who would use those weapons to murder. They KNEW that a future government would try to take those Birthrights away from us, promising security. That is why Thomas Jefferson foresaw a Republic whose liberty was maintained with the judicious use of armed rebellion against a well armed army. THAT is the primary purpose of the 2A, and why modern weapons in the hands of citizens are still necessary.

Solo
January 18, 2013, 06:47 PM
The Founding Fathers were intelligent, wise men. One need only read a few of the their letters arguing for and against adoption of the BOR to understand that they believed without a doubt that progress would lead to increasingly dangerous weapons.
Could you provide some specific letters or quotes for future reference? I imagine this would be very useful when debating the intent of the Founding Fathers.

KTXdm9
January 18, 2013, 07:09 PM
Nobody is talking about appeasement and I don't think you want to get into the socialism argument here. Plenty of countries in Europe with standards of living meeting or exceeding our own. "Socialism" on this board rarely seems to match the definition most other places know it by. Indeed, here it simply seems to mean "any government spending I don't agree with."
Appeasement is exactly what is being discussed. We don't need to "offer" anything to anti-gunners. If we did, what do you suggest we would get in return?

You are right, socialism is a hot button topic. I guess you and I will have to differ on our views regarding European standards of living and the value of "strengthening social programs to fight poverty."

2nd 41
January 18, 2013, 07:13 PM
I debate, I do not argue. I debate with facts, logic and reason. If the other side of the argument does not want to have a civil discussion then I will not engage them at all. I`ll not be baited in their illogical unworkable schemes and talk.
Same here. However they will always point their finger at the NRA. I tell them the NRA members go to movies, malls and have kids in school. The NRA is your fellow neighbor, friend, lawyer, doctor, teacher...whatever. Also ask the people that know me personally "would you feel safer if I tossed my HC mags out"
Also ask them how they would respond if they or a family member has their life threatened. Would they consider a firearm for self protection.

Clean97GTI
January 18, 2013, 07:20 PM
Appeasement is exactly what is being discussed. We don't need to "offer" anything to anti-gunners. If we did, what do you suggest we would get in return?

You are right, socialism is a hot button topic. I guess you and I will have to differ on our views regarding European standards of living and the value of "strengthening social programs to fight poverty."

What you get really depends on what you ask for. Giving away the universal background check would, in the opinion of many here, do absolutely nothing. Criminals will still get guns just as they always have. The checks might stop a few more but the serious ones will still get their guns.
However, you might find that because you are willing to acquiesce to the background checks, you could ask for the removal of certain drugs from controlled substance lists thus allowing states to make their own calls on what is OK and what is not. Drugs are a huge driving force behind gang violence in this country. Take steps towards fixing that problem and guess what. You might find gun violence starts to drop off a bit.

j.kramer
January 18, 2013, 07:22 PM
there is no debating on the social media

make your point and move on

keep your comments on top view

the inti posters dont care one way or another they get paid to be anti

and they get paid to have their comments on top of others

what matters is the readers of those comments
for any anti comment have a good and smart comment against let the readers make their own minds of what is right or wrong

SuperNaut
January 18, 2013, 07:33 PM
Could you provide some specific letters or quotes for future reference? I imagine this would be very useful when debating the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Your best bet is to reference the various Militia Acts that have been enacted all the way up into the 1900's. They all reference being trained and issued current military arms, that includes automatic weapons. Whether or not the Founders could envision the types of weaponry that we have today is completely irrelevant, because legal precedent has kept apace with technology.

lionking
January 18, 2013, 07:39 PM
Thanks for the comments so far it has been a informative and interesting read and I'd like to especially applaud posts # 24 by clean97, #29 by mrvco and #34 by deanimator.

Regarding clean97 on #24, I agree that violence is only a bi-product and the root cause is better addressed. Whether a gun is within access or not when we have too many with lack of love or respect for themselves and others who want to murder then there is a serious underlying issue.

Tcruse
January 19, 2013, 08:53 AM
Quote:
"The biggest problem here is that such arguments, when applied to a national stage, offer no solution to gun violence. More comprehensive screenings of gun buyers might yield a few more guns kept out of the hands of criminals. More importantly, it is a seemingly meaningful concession that may be of little actual use but it puts the ball back in the hands of the pro-gun groups. Now we can use our concession to begin something truly useful like the legalization and regulation of drug sales. The strengthening of social programs to actually fight poverty."
Agreed, however we need to also push for gun training in high school and college. We need to push the NRA training role for all persons. My thoughts are that if you could get most of the anti-gun people to a good range for a day, it would change much about the way they think. Especially, if they could see that the people that go to ranges are normal people, couples, women both young and old, and grand parents. See that the people that run the ranges are like your neighbors and friends.

kcgunesq
January 19, 2013, 09:17 AM
I never understand the argument that the founders couldn't have known what future weapons would be developed so the 2nd amendment is no longer applicable to many modern firearms. Many of our founding fathers were inventors, entrepreneurs and innovators in their time. I'm pretty sure that people of their intelligence and determination were keenly aware of what the future of weapons development could bring.
I'm not sure they even had to envision much. The idea is simply that if the citizens have the right to arms, then no matter hows arms developed, they would match that of the government and any standing army. Once you decided to ensure parity, the specific nature of the tools reflected in that parity are not so important.

Deanimator
January 19, 2013, 01:02 PM
Appeasement is exactly what is being discussed. We don't need to "offer" anything to anti-gunners. If we did, what do you suggest we would get in return?
I'm having exactly the same "debate" on another forum with a couple of AHSA fifth columnists.

One has as much as admitted we get NOTHING back, and the other refuses to answer AT ALL.

Appeasement of anti-gunners is a ponzi scheme where NOBODY gets paid.

Deanimator
January 19, 2013, 01:04 PM
However, you might find that because you are willing to acquiesce to the background checks, you could ask for the removal of certain drugs from controlled substance lists thus allowing states to make their own calls on what is OK and what is not.
What's that got to do with restrictions on gun owners?

NOTHING.

Name a restriction on gun owners which has been removed in return for gun owner concessions to anti-gunners.

powder
January 19, 2013, 01:26 PM
On a couple forums. There have been a couple with good knowledge about guns and respond polite who take their opinion for whatever reason but I got to say the vast majority of them deflect the issue, use insults instead of challenging what they have been asked or shown, and who use stupid responses or questions like " should you be able to own a nuke then?"

One of their most common responses is " the founders couldn't have envisioned such modern lethal firearms therefore the 2nd is outdated". Which I then respond " well if true then they couldn't have envisioned internet, TV and radio so therefore the 1st is outdated so should certain entertainers and radio people be fingerprinted and registered or banned and should certain video games be banned?"


Yes, basic reasoning has gone out the window. So, the most effective way to battle this is to continue supporting firearms education through Boy Scout, NRA, or local Rod & Gun Club programs: kids have to be SHOWN that firearms are not pathological instruments with minds of their own, but simple tools.

After work the other night, on the drive home, I was listening to Allen Combs.(Sp?) It's a more liberal radio station, but this guy was running a show more like it was "hate radio" and he brought up this "nuke" point in relation to 2A.

Why are we trying to align ourselves with the founding fathers, as if we can relate to them, but want to use them for our own purposes today? That makes as much sense as the "nuke" logic, or lack thereof...

Basic statistics and passing on that knowledge is how we win: approximately 3/4 of firearms deaths last year were suicides done with handguns, which just furthers the debate angle of needing better and more effective mental healthcare in the U.S.. The majority of the remaining portion of that pie is criminal activity, again, done with a handgun. There were almost no black rifles involved with firearms related deaths last year, statistically speaking.

On the flip side, I just received an NRA e-mail today that had bad statistics in it; stating that violence had declined in the past 20 years-absolutely false. Actual homicide rates cannot be used, as medical tech. and response times are saving more lives than ever. Aggravated assaults and attempted homicides have sky-rocketed five-fold, IIRC, and THAT is the Stat. the NRA should be using for self-defense purposes for RKBA. Not sure why they went with a misdirection/lie....

1911 guy
January 19, 2013, 01:40 PM
I feel special. I got an honorable mention in a link by clean97GT1. Of course, he held me up as an example of "the same tired argument".

I'll return the favor and hold him up as an example of someone seeking a way to throw other gun owners under the bus to assuage his own feelings of self pity or loathing for being somehow a contributor the the problem of gun violence. I don't see him as such, but apparently he does. Despite persuasive arguments by many people, he refuses to see what is self evident by the admission of the anti-gun crowd themselves. Ultimate confiscation is their goal, yet somehow we're to see caving on a key point in their plan as "compromise". When pressed for what we might get as part of the compromise, there was reference to legalizing pot.

In short, the classic example of what has been mentioned by Deanimator. Someone who has their mind made up, cannot be bothered with facts and claims majority support for his opinion in the face of overwhelming opposition. Then declares the opposition uneducated rubes and ultimately results to name calling and personal attack. Seen it in the very thread he was so kind as to reference.

In short, debating someone who has not yet made up their mind can be profitable. Debating someone who has a position but also has an open mind to the reality of the topic debated can be profitable. Debating someone who has abandoned rational thought in favor of "feelings" and amorphous "maybe's" is an exercise in futility. I submit Exhibit A, a member of this board who claims to adhere to Libertarian Socialism (supposedly non-beaurocratic) yet feels more government involvement (mandatory background checks on private sales) is a workable solution.

lionking
January 20, 2013, 08:48 PM
There is another slogan the anti's like to use that I will mention and that is "if it saves one child".

More and more we hear about kids being bullied by the internet, facebook and texting. It is as common to hear about a kid commiting suicide over bullying as it is to hear about a rampage.

Should we ban facebook, the internet, forums and texting? I mean obviously kids are dying from them so if it saves one child? The 1sr amendment nut be damned, turn in your face book account Mr and Mrs America.

Where is the call to ban and regulate face book and texting? I hear crickets. Our kids are dying from bullying while the free speech nuts cling to their blackberry.

I propose licensing of mobile phones, and bans on phones with texting ability over 10 texts a month and government registration with I.D with yearly background fees of face book and other social internet places. So you use your face book account and phone responsibly? So what? Too many others don't.

So face book wasn't designed to kill so what? It still is killing too often so save one child's life and give it up to the government.

Do I support such measures of course not but just saying.....

I just had a anti post the photos of the kids in Connecticut to my response in a thread on another forum. It is heart breaking, but if they are going to go down the slippery slope of give up freedom if it saves one life where would that end? Or if someone dies from NOT being able to have a gun for self protection are they expendable in the numbers game?

Guy B. Meredith
January 20, 2013, 10:09 PM
That stuff about "saving one child" infers that you as an individual are liable or responsible, violent because you have a firearm. My personal response is "Did my gun kill any kids? Then why do you insist on punishing me for that crime?" It's personal and we need to be seen as individuals, not statistics.

On the other hand, a few years back I got irritated at an acquaintance who noticed my NRA sticker on my car with a stuffy comment and I replied in an extremely sarcastic tone, "Yeah, I'm in the NRA. Feeling badly as I haven't killed my quota of kids today." Having the stupidity of her comment pushed in her face ended that conversation.

justice06rr
January 21, 2013, 02:34 AM
My only advice is not to argue or debate with them.

Have an informal discussion instead, and educate them about firearms. If they are still firm about being anti- , stop and move on.

General Geoff
January 21, 2013, 03:03 AM
"If you are for gun control, then you're not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. You'll need to go around, pass laws, and shoot people who resist, kick in doors, and throw people in jail, and so on; rip up families, just to take away guns. So it's not that you're anti-gun, because [...] you'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns, so you're very pro-gun, you just believe that only the government (which is of course so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward-thinking) should be allowed to have guns. So there's no such thing as gun control, there's only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions. Gun control is a misnomer." Stefan Molyneux
That can be summarized as,

"If you think the government should still have guns, you're not anti-gun; you're pro-tyranny.

DeepSouth
January 21, 2013, 04:15 AM
One of their most common responses is " the founders couldn't have envisioned such modern lethal firearms therefore the 2nd is outdated". Which I then respond " well if true then they couldn't have envisioned internet, TV and radio so therefore the 1st is outdated so should certain entertainers and radio people be fingerprinted and registered or banned and should certain video games be banned?"


I also like to point out that any Ol' civilian could then (and now) own an infantry cannon with all the balls and grape shot they could afford, not to mention all the black powder they could afford. Even if it were TONS, it was still legal. Then I like to challage them to find ONE weapon that was used in the revolutionary war that a common man couldn't own. If there were any I don't know about them and apparently nobody else does either.

Posted via iPhone

Kiln
January 21, 2013, 04:15 AM
On a couple forums. There have been a couple with good knowledge about guns and respond polite who take their opinion for whatever reason but I got to say the vast majority of them deflect the issue, use insults instead of challenging what they have been asked or shown, and who use stupid responses or questions like " should you be able to own a nuke then?"

One of their most common responses is " the founders couldn't have envisioned such modern lethal firearms therefore the 2nd is outdated". Which I then respond " well if true then they couldn't have envisioned internet, TV and radio so therefore the 1st is outdated so should certain entertainers and radio people be fingerprinted and registered or banned and should certain video games be banned?"

I don't support such measures but just saying. They won't respond to that though, they go back to deflecting and insulting. Don't bother trying to change these people's mind or show them the deceit that people like Cuomo or Feinstein use, you'll be wasting your time.

I DID reach a co-worker who is a Obama supporter because of other issues though for him it being healthcare, I did reach him to understand the deceit and lies of anti-gunners so use your time on the unknowing and middle ground people instead. Forget about debating hardened anti gun people, use your time for better things like looking for the last .223 or 9mm in country.;)
Alright here's the argument I use against the "nuke" or "modern arms are more dangerous than the founding fathers could have imagined" argument:

The framers never imagined a weapon capable of destroying an entire city or cities and therefore there was nothing about it in the constitution. I do however, doubt that they would've been okay with the government having this kind of power in the first place.

Firearms on the other hand are specifically mentioned under the second amendment. The founders were comfortable with ownership of potentially dangerous weapons at the time and they were working on them even then.

Cannons and grenades were privately owned and unregulated at the time. They were not afraid of firearms. In fact, at that time you were considered dishonorable if you carried a firearm CONCEALED instead of open carrying. Now that open carry has been demonized and forced into the closet, concealed carry is necessary.

Gun owners are everywhere in America. They make up every race, religion, and party. The vast majority of gun owners never commit a crime with their firearm despite there being millions of guns out there.

In some places the response time of police officers is over 20 minutes. Even if you live inside of a large city, three minutes is a long time if you're unarmed and afraid.

People need to be able to defend themselves. The framers never intended for you to have to sit back and hope the police arrived in time. They understood the right to defend to be a basic human right that was beyond questioning. If they could only see what the political system has become, they'd be sick with grief over the people trying their best to find a workaround to the US Constitution and to disarm the very people that the constitution was written to protect.

If you enjoyed reading about "I've been debating with a few anti gun people lately" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!