Help Me Demolish My Anti-Gun Aunt's Gun Control Scheme...


PDA






CmdrSlander
March 21, 2013, 03:37 PM
I visited with my aunt recently, she was rabidly anti-gun (as in "Ban them all!") but in the course of the weekend I managed to convince her that semi autos/"assault weapons" were not the problem re: overall gun violence rates and that people, myself included do indeed enjoy AR15s and the like without hurting anybody. She remained, however, convinced of several things:

-The average person has no need of a semi-auto... those that want them want them as a result of some kind of perverse desire (she conflated it with penis size or, shall we say, the lack thereof).

-People in rural areas do actually need "hunting rifles" - city dwellers really ought to be disarmed though (with the exception of people who have enemies like criminal attorneys).

-The 2nd Amendment has been irrelevant since the Civil War, the Heller decision was a product of the corrupt Roberts Court.

-"Assault weapons" are no worse than other semi-autos, magazines are the problem and should be strictly limited (she was saying ten, then went down to five).

-The "Gun Culture" is a bunch of idiots and weirdos and it should be destroyed.

With that in mind, here was the compromise (read: it does not ban them all like she really wants to) gun control scheme she offered me at the end of the weekend:

-To buy any gun you need a FOID (Firearms Owner ID) card and to get a FOID card you need 16 hours of training and a thorough background check.

-After you get your FOID card you have to own, without incident a "hunting rifle" or "defense pistol" for two years. She defines a hunting rifle as a manual action long gun with a capacity of 5 or less rounds and a defense pistol as a revolver with a capacity under 6 rounds. After two years you can buy any gun you want (but mags are still restricted, see below).

-The government knows how many guns you have and the general type (long gun, handgun) of gun but not the make, model or S/N. She believes the police need to know this basic info (number of guns you own) so that if you lose your FOID they know, in the process of taking your guns, when they have gotten them all. However, she considers herself a bit of a privacy watchdog and believes the government has no need to know make/model/SN to carry out confiscation should the need arise and would only abuse that info.

-The FOID is linked to an electronic database with your name in it in real time, should you commit a crime and be caught, be arrested for a violent offense, or reported as mentally unstable it is voided and the cops will show up to collect your guns.

-Magazines for rifles over five rounds are legal and have legitimate competition purposes (I told her about three gun competition, etc. and got her to make this concession) but must be stored and used at shooting ranges.

-If you already own guns you must get a FOID to keep owning them but can get one by having three character witnesses or a single Chief Law Enforcement Officer (Police chief, sheriff) testify that you are sane, law abiding and responsible (in short, you can skip the restricted period and the classes). If you can't get three witnesses, turn in your guns or sell them to someone with a FOID until you complete the training.

--------------------------------------------

Right then, there's the scheme, now demolish it and arm me with counterarguments.

One stipulation: She firmly believes the Second Amendment and the Constitution are irrelevant, she will dismiss out of hand any argument that uses those documents and/or our founding principles and heritage as evidence.

If you enjoyed reading about "Help Me Demolish My Anti-Gun Aunt's Gun Control Scheme..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
1KPerDay
March 21, 2013, 03:41 PM
One stipulation: She firmly believes the Second Amendment and the Constitution are irrelevant, she will dismiss out of hand any argument that uses those documents and/or our founding principles and heritage as evidence.

Why bother arguing with her? She's a loon. Go shooting.

CmdrSlander
March 21, 2013, 03:44 PM
Why bother arguing with her? She's a loon. Go shooting.
Because she's not a loon... she's a very rational person (a CPA at that) she just believes those documents are less important than public safety... to wit:

"If I wanted to make the bubonic plague at my house the Federal Government would arrest me even though I'm not engaging in interstate commerce... how do they have that power? Because we let them have it for the sake of public safety."

She's wrong but she's not crazy.

OilyPablo
March 21, 2013, 03:46 PM
Interesting. I mean what would we call a person who just dismissed the 1st Amendment as irrelevant?

She might, and I mean maybe, get something out of this:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/03/the-assault-weapons-ban-as-understood-by-a-second-amendment-scholar.html

ATBackPackin
March 21, 2013, 03:48 PM
With a stance like that I sincerely doubt there is much you can say or do to convince her otherwise.

My problem with people like this is that if they truly feel the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant or outdated, then have an amendment to the Constitution. Do away with it the right way.

CmdrSlander
March 21, 2013, 03:48 PM
Interesting. I mean what would we call a person who just dismissed the 1st Amendment as irrelevant?

She might, and I mean maybe, get something out of this:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/03/the-assault-weapons-ban-as-understood-by-a-second-amendment-scholar.html

At this rate...

A Senator?

Mr. President?

SabbathWolf
March 21, 2013, 03:57 PM
Because she's not a loon... she's a very rational person (a CPA at that) she just believes those documents are less important than public safety... to wit:

"If I wanted to make the bubonic plague at my house the Federal Government would arrest me even though I'm not engaging in interstate commerce... how do they have that power? Because we let them have it for the sake of public safety."

She's wrong but she's not crazy.
Being a CPA has NOTHING to do with being a rational person.
I've met all sorts of very well educated idiots in my life.

Godsgunman
March 21, 2013, 03:59 PM
Tell her if she thinks that the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant then they all are. She no longer has the freedom to speak what she wants or worship wherever/however she wants, heck being a woman I guess her opinion and vote doesn't count while we're at it. One goes, they all go.

ATBackPackin
March 21, 2013, 04:00 PM
Tell her how "safe" society would be if we didn't have any Bill of Rights. Who needs the pesky 1st Amendment? Who "needs" a 4th Amendment? If you don't have anything to hide then what is the problem? Etc.

OilyPablo
March 21, 2013, 04:03 PM
I mean what would we call a person who just dismissed the 1st Amendment as irrelevant?
At this rate...

A Senator?

Mr. President?

True enough today. Most would call such a person a proponent of dictatorship or worse.

ExTank
March 21, 2013, 04:03 PM
Molon Labe.

Bring it.

SabbathWolf
March 21, 2013, 04:04 PM
Send her T-shirt with this on it.....lol

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Ben Franklin

Solo
March 21, 2013, 04:04 PM
-The average person has no need of a semi-auto... those that want them want them as a result of some kind of perverse desire (she conflated it with penis size or, shall we say, the lack thereof).
As a person with a psychology minor, I can say that there is no reputable research to back her opinion up. Suggest that she find actual valid facts to justify her opinions before acting on them.

-People in rural areas do actually need "hunting rifles" - city dwellers really ought to be disarmed though (with the exception of people who have enemies like criminal attorneys).
Criminals are the enemies of us all.

-The 2nd Amendment has been irrelevant since the Civil War, the Heller decision was a product of the corrupt Roberts Court.
I think that the "right to privacy" has been irrelevant since 9/11. We can no longer let criminals and terrorists hide behind the 4th amendment. It is time to stop coddling these madmen and enact real change to ensure the safety of American citizens. Any decisions protecting the right to privacy, or against unreasonable search and seizure, violation of due process, forbidding cruel and unusual punishment, and etc are a product of a corrupt Supreme Court.

-"Assault weapons" are no worse than other semi-autos, magazines are the problem and should be strictly limited (she was saying ten, then went down to five).
Ask her for data indicating that such a ban would have useful effects. Canada has had such a restriction for years now. Surely there is information on the subject from up north?

-To buy any gun you need a FOID (Firearms Owner ID) card and to get a FOID card you need 16 hours of training and a thorough background check.To combat the dangers of religious extremism, I propose that we enact a RPID (Religious Practice ID) card. To get it, you must simply pass a year's worth of religion class at a reputable university and a background check. Afterwards, you may practice your religion for up to a year before renewing your RPID.
There will, of course, be a limit of 3 religious texts that one may own at any one time, each text being limited to 500 words each. The government must know of and be able to keep track of each one of these texts at all times, and may inspect your home at any time to make sure you own no texts outside of what you are allowed to.

One can imagine a similar process for voting. After all, it is important to avoid electing the wrong candidate who will lead the country astray, after all...

dogrunner
March 21, 2013, 04:05 PM
Obviously a true believer in the "living" Constitution theory...........that woman is truly a classic example of liberal 'new think' as well as the sort of thought pattern that would (will) destroy our Republic!

There were folks just like that in the 1770's..........they went to Canada after the treaty of Paris!

dmancornell
March 21, 2013, 04:06 PM
Because she's not a loon... she's a very rational person (a CPA at that) she just believes those documents are less important than public safety... to wit:

"If I wanted to make the bubonic plague at my house the Federal Government would arrest me even though I'm not engaging in interstate commerce... how do they have that power? Because we let them have it for the sake of public safety."

She's wrong but she's not crazy.
Public safety is a euphemism for authoritarianism, period. The notion that people need to be controlled by government bureaucrats for their own good is no different from the pro-slavery arguments before the Civil War.

IMO rational thought and authoritarianism is not mutually exclusive, it simply requires one to be morally challenged.

12gaugeTim
March 21, 2013, 04:10 PM
Because she's not a loon... she's a very rational person (a CPA at that) she just believes those documents are less important than public safety...

You also said she mentioned people who buy semi automatic rifles have a "compensation" complex. Anyone who makes that assertion is clearly incapable of reaching rational conclusions and using the most basic fundamentals of logic. I would not waste my time trying to debate with someone with the critical thinking of a middle schooler.

mgmorden
March 21, 2013, 04:11 PM
I can't say that I agree with the "Just ignore her" crowd. That's how we've gotten to the situation that we have. We keep ignoring the anti-gunners saying "we can't change their minds" while they keep on preaching their views.

If we don't stay vocal, then our numbers don't expand. Gun rights in this country die as enough of of our supports age out and die without being replaced.

It needn't get heated (indeed, the best debaters are the ones who don't get flustered under pressure), but politely contest such rubbish.

USAF_Vet
March 21, 2013, 04:14 PM
Buy her a one way ticket to England. She will be very happy there.

RustHunter87
March 21, 2013, 04:15 PM
does she know what she proposes will effectively destroy America:fire:

X-JaVeN-X
March 21, 2013, 04:17 PM
Because she's not a loon... she's a very rational person (a CPA at that) she just believes those documents are less important than public safety... to wit:

"If I wanted to make the bubonic plague at my house the Federal Government would arrest me even though I'm not engaging in interstate commerce... how do they have that power? Because we let them have it for the sake of public safety."

She's wrong but she's not crazy.
Sorry...but a rational, logical person would not use that as an argument. It is a ridiculous reach that has no similarities to guns. I don't argue with people that attempt to use absurd analogies like that. They obviously have no desire to keep the argument in the realm of reality.

Solo
March 21, 2013, 04:20 PM
If a gun is an extension of a penis, what is a purse?

Archie
March 21, 2013, 04:22 PM
Commander, I fear no argument will have any sway over your aunt.

She is operating from an emotion based point of view. She has been convinced (brain-washed is a similar but harsher term) by the Leftist faction (including 'the media') that guns are evil and do not belong in an enlightened society. She is a true believer.

She might be swayed by an emotional argument and experience; for instance the Luby's restaurant shooting in Killeen, Texas in October, 1991. One of the survivors was a woman named Suzanna Hupp, who's parents were murdered in the shooting. She later became a member of the Texas Legislature. This is another case of a mass murder being facilitated by anti-gun laws.

Perhaps showing the vast number of mass-shootings that have encouraged by 'gun laws' might have an emotional effect on your aunt, but logic never will.

You have my sympathy, by the way.

jrdolall
March 21, 2013, 04:23 PM
Any time you get into a discussion with an anti you must clearly point out that this is not about "need". If you concede that one word then you have lost the argument.

Very few of us "need" a 100 round drum. I don't "need" the 3 safes full of assorted guns I own. I have owned and carried firearms virtually all my life and not once in those 50+ years have I ever "needed" the gun I was carrying for SD. I have never "needed" the guns I have designated for HD.

I don't "need" a cell phone that allows me to watch porn while driving. There is no public road in the USA where going 100MPH is legal so I don't "need" my F150 that will easily surpass that figure (as will pretty much every production car).

There is a process for changing the Constitution. It was put there for a reason. That is why women can vote and why we have freedom of speech. Use that process and attack the rights of gunowners. If enough people agree then the 2A can be repealed. If not then leave it alone.

95XL883
March 21, 2013, 04:26 PM
ď-The average person has no need of a semi-auto... those that want them want them as a result of some kind of perverse desire (she conflated it with penis size or, shall we say, the lack thereof). ď

Iím only going to respond to this one right now. When I was 5 years old, I was the victim of a violent predator. Since that day, I have lived with a standing death threat on my family if I ever discussed it with anybody. The a*****e even had the gall to call my parents and threaten them as well. (They thought he was talking about my older brother and hired a bodyguard for him.)

I kept my silence until my mother passed last year. While Iím a grown man now and rationally know my attacker is so old, if he is even alive, he is no real threat anymore, in one way Iím still 5 years old protecting my mom by keeping my nightmare to myself. (I still worry a little that I might somehow be endangering my siblings by mentioning it even now.) Iím mentioning it now to shake off some of the hold that a*****e still has on me.

When I was a young man, I was very strong and while scared, was confident that I could defend me and mine with my bare hands.

Iím 57 now and nowhere near as strong as I used to be. I carry a full size 9mm with a loaded 17 round magazine. If I ever have to, I will use it to protect my wife, my children and me. (I look for every opportunity to avoid ever needing to use it. Iíll take insults and disrespect rather than chance a confrontation. If a confrontation is unavoidable, I will look for every possible way to diffuse it. But if I ever have to, well, thatís why Iíve got it.)

Iíve had no legal trouble in my life. Iíve taken insults and abuse rather than risk a confrontation. Iím considered a model citizen, held a job all this time, been a good dad and husband, active in the community and supportive of others.

For me the desire is simply to keep my family and me safe. Evil strikes without warning. It strikes without mercy. It strikes the weak, the unprepared, the unaware and the naÔve. At best your aunt is naÔve.

Carrying has nothing to do with the size of my penis. That is an insult to me. I was violated by evil because I was weak, unaware and naÔve. Your aunt owes me an apology. You can tell her that from me. She owes every victim an apology. After what I have been through, I canít help but wonder if she is really a sympathizer with evil or even evil herself. (Sorry, I donít mean to insult her. But anybody who would deny anybody their right to protect themselves speaks or acts on their belief, I have to question their motives. Nobody is made safe by stripping their ability to protect themselves.)

She owes me an appropriate apology. Again I donít mean to insult her or instigate a confrontation with you or her. I hope to never meet her. If I ever do, I will be respectful and polite, but until she appropriately apologizes and acts accordingly, I canít see me ever liking her or thinking of her as a decent human being.

To all I apologize for my harsh tone. I feel very strongly about this. Iíll avoid the fight if at all possible but I will not helplessly suffer such a crime again or allow my family to so suffer.

PS. Iím a CPA myself.

I've got to get back to work now.

mljdeckard
March 21, 2013, 04:29 PM
To me, she sounds too committed to be worth the effort.

Fundamentally, the burden of proof is not on us to prove why we need or want guns. Self-defense is a fundamental human right. Keeping and bearing arms is the means by which that right is implemented. The Constitution protects that right, it doesn't give it to us. It is called the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. The burden of proof falls upon THEM to say why any of these things is untrue.

You're not going to convince her of anything.

SharpsDressedMan
March 21, 2013, 04:37 PM
Liberals often close their minds, akin to sticking their fingers in their ears and going "LALALALALALALA". Once they no longer are interested in discussion or logical debate, any effort you make will be fruitless. They are regarding you as foolish, uninformed (only the liberal doctrine is valid, in their opinion), and you are speaking outside of their permitted train of thought. The correct response to someone that denigrates your beliefs, way of life, posture of patriotism and the value of the Second Amendment as she did (by your words) deserves a response not allowed on THR. She is basically saying you are a fool, and doesn't want to hear anything from someone whom she puts so low on the smart list. As stated above, go shooting and/or move on to someone who will treat your argument with respect.

evan price
March 21, 2013, 04:40 PM
Put her points right back at her, but reference the First Amendment.

Or just ignore the old biddy.

JonnyGringo
March 21, 2013, 04:43 PM
Drop her off on the South Side on Friday night........

sgray
March 21, 2013, 04:58 PM
First, let me admit that I've changed very few minds that were already "set" in their own opinion.

Maybe you could recommend to your aunt that she go visit a V.A. hospital and ask those of us who have been mutilated, burned, mangled, traumatized and/or simply injured that the reason their/our lives were "Trashed"
......" are irrelevant"
__________
Another argument that works for me (Re: "but who needs a 30 round" blah, blah "weapon of war"
is:
"When it's 3AM, your door has been kicked in, glass broken, , cops dozing at Krispy-Kream (etc etc) what would YOU want your hubby to be armed with while you cower under the bed?"

"When the Secret Service starts using Flintlocks to protect our Coungress-scoundrels, I'll THINK about giving up my "ugly gun"....Maybe

Best Wishes,
Gray

soloban
March 21, 2013, 05:03 PM
If a gun is an extension of a penis, what is a purse?

Bwhahahaha

gazpacho
March 21, 2013, 05:03 PM
Call her a rapist.

Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million rapes per year (google it, some Florida professor). Only rapists would want to stop rape prevention. Therefore, people who want to ban guns, must be rapists. :evil:

Oh, and AR-15s shoot really small bullets, so people who use them must have giant dicks. Just don't tell Lance Corporal Michelle that she has a giant dick, or she might just shoot you. Some of them bolt action rifles shoot some Gawd aweful big bullet, but don't tell them hunters that they got tiny dicks, because they have rifles that shoot Gawd aweful big bullets . . . :D

Finally, give her a giant sign to post in her front yard that says, "I am female and don't have guns. I have a great paying job and think the Constitution is a worthless piece of paper."

She is the kind of person that deserves to get fruit cake for christmas.

AlexanderA
March 21, 2013, 05:16 PM
I wouldn't waste a moment of my time arguing with this woman. Her "plan" is a crock, from beginning to end, and is based on profound ignorance of guns and their place in our society. Fortunately, people like her don't have the requisite political clout.

SabbathWolf
March 21, 2013, 05:21 PM
Finally, secretly place a giant sign in her front yard that says, "I am female and don't have guns. I have a great paying job and lots of cool stuff in my house, and think the Constitution is a worthless piece of paper compared to dialing 911 and hiding in my closet while you rob me."

SEND her a fruit cake for christmas with ex-lax in it(because she's so full of xxxx).





Changed it a little just to make myself smile for a second during a time that we've not had much to smile about lately. No offense meant.

:D

SharpsDressedMan
March 21, 2013, 05:22 PM
"Fortunately, people like her don't have the requisite political clout." ............................................................................................................................. Recent political activity in NY and CO would indicate otherwise.

larryh1108
March 21, 2013, 05:34 PM
Some people can't be reasoned with. The smarter they are, the harder they are to sway the other way. They feel they are right so it has to be right. She needs to spend a day at a victim of crimes group therapy session. Obviously she feels "it" can never happen to her because she is smart and she is right. You may as well be talking to the wall.

TCB in TN
March 21, 2013, 05:53 PM
Years ago I had a discussion with my FiL and his wife about guns. They were Psychologists. Both wanted to bash me about my conservative views on Guns, crime, etc. Of course one of their main points being that guns cause crime, and it was our (gun owners) faults that it happened.

After that discussion I went and pulled several widely accepted published studies on recidivism rates of violent offenders and went after them telling them how it was Psychologists and their programs that was responsible for letting those felons out on society, they were enabling violent crime etc. Of course they argued that it wasn't the Psychologist's fault that it was the felon's fault. After which I pointed out the inconsistency of their arguments.

They didn't agree, but they never brought the subject up again. Some times you are not going to win the debate, but at least you can get the other person off your back.

vtail
March 21, 2013, 06:02 PM
Find and introduce her to some folks that spent some time in pre-WWII Germany and Poland.

Have them tell her some stories.

denton
March 21, 2013, 06:07 PM
A lot of good points made... maybe a couple more:

Don't defend your viewpoint. Make her defend hers.

First, talk about the fundamental logical error that many make. They see that X% of homicides and Y% of suicides involve a firearm, and assume that if firearms were eliminated, that percent of the homicides and suicides would go away. The best evidence is that they would not. People simply find other means. Japan is practically gun free, but their suicide rate is twice ours. Obviously, they are coping quite well with their lack of firearms. Malaysia has practically no private firearm ownership, and their homicide rate is about the same as my home state, Utah, which is practically awash with firearms. As nearly as anyone can tell, if you eliminated all the firearms in the US, it would have no good effect on crime rates. More than likely, it would make things measurably worse. It's not the firearms that are the problem. It's us. Nobody has yet found a positive correlation between the strictness of gun laws and the homicide rate.

If she's a CPA, talk in terms of balancing risk and reward.

Ask her how many times per year firearms are used wrongfully. Then, point out that by the most conservative estimates they are used more than 10X as often to prevent crime. For every crime committed with a firearm, 10 are prevented with one. If it saves just one life, isn't it worth it to have an armed society?

Criminals are not looking for a fair fight. They want an easy target. 93% of the time, if you show a firearm, your assailant will flee.

If she wakes up in the night and a large, foul-smelling rapist is just entering her bedroom, exactly what's her plan? What's the conversation to occupy the three minutes or so that it takes a good police department to respond? Those minutes tend to be violent and ugly.

I know what my wife would do. She'd put two rounds in his center of mass so fast it would make your head spin. That's the choice she has already made.

TylerS
March 21, 2013, 06:26 PM
Your aunt is looking at something too narrowly, as mathematicians tend to do, i.e. 2+2=4. Your aunt needs to think bigger. The problem is that the world we live in is not simple. The gun debate here in the United States is very analogous to the nuclear weapon debate. If you look at only the fact that the U.S. dropped a bomb on Japan and killed 140,000 to 240,000 people it seems and is a horrible thing that happened. The problem lies in that acute perspective of the facts. Now, if we include that had we invaded and it was as difficult as that pacific island campaign. We would have projectively lost approximately 1,000,000 AMERICAN Lives. So by simple math at least 750,000 lives were saved by the bomb.

I know it was a long and simple argument and there are many more facts and arguments left out, BUT Guns in the United States including the black evil ones, when owned by responsible citizens save lives. Since 1812 the U.S. has not had a serious invasion into our territory, our government (until lately) has not become tyrannical, these among many other factors could be a direct result of the second amendment.

As for self-defense according to FBI statistics and surveys approximately guns are used in self-defense approximately 650,000 times a year. Now this does not mean that had they not been there that someone would have been killed, but still that is really high. I personally have had to draw a concealed weapon in self defense and in my work (armed security) multiple times. I truly believe that if I had not had the gun awful things would have happened.

The second amendment is not obsolete because it keeps government at bay, keeps citizens protected, and forces other governments to think twice about invasion. This is exactly why it was included in the Bill of Rights and continues to work today.

Ratshooter
March 21, 2013, 06:27 PM
If a gun is an extension of a penis, what is a purse?

A gun you hold in your hand and a purse you...put stuff in!:neener:

RetiredUSNChief
March 21, 2013, 06:44 PM
What's the point, outside of an academic exercise for entertainment purposes?

I suppose you could use her own arguments and do away with any number of other Amendments "because they aren't necessary".

Be sure you finish that debate up with why the First Amendment isn't necessary anymore, either.

soonerfan85
March 21, 2013, 06:49 PM
Never argue with a pig. It just frustrates you and irritates the pig.

Not calling your aunt a pig, but sometimes you just can't fix stupid.

But to her credit, at least she didn't argue that we should look at how the civilized countries in Europe do things. Progressives my @ss.

browneu
March 21, 2013, 06:49 PM
I begin to twitch everytime someone mentions FOID. I'm assuming your from Illinois.

My thoughts on your post.

Your aunt is highly opinionated and made her opinions personal. You have to ask yourself what you hope to accomplish, education or antagonize. I'm afraid I have to agree with others that educating and changing her mind is futile.

I understand you think she's rational but some of her arguments are far from rational. Changing an irrational mind is hard but not impossible. Also, are you prepared for your relationship to become strained if you attempt this. I'm going to assume she's going to become emotional when you begin to discount her opinions. Which, is exactly what they are.

Your best options are to ask simple questions like how and why. Why did the civil war nullify the second ammendment. What guarantees the prevention of another civil war. Then how can the civil war nullify the second ammendment if another war cannot be guaranteed to be prevented.

All of her points can be dismantled in this manner. You must be methodical, deliberate, and not become emotional.

Good luck and I admire your passion.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

CmdrSlander
March 21, 2013, 07:03 PM
I begin to twitch everytime someone mentions FOID. I'm assuming your from Illinois.

My thoughts on your post.

Your aunt is highly opinionated and made her opinions personal. You have to ask yourself what you hope to accomplish, education or antagonize. I'm afraid I have to agree with others that educating and changing her mind is futile.

I understand you think she's rational but some of her arguments are far from rational. Changing an irrational mind is hard but not impossible. Also, are you prepared for your relationship to become strained if you attempt this. I'm going to assume she's going to become emotional when you begin to discount her opinions. Which, is exactly what they are.

Your best options are to ask simple questions like how and why. Why did the civil war nullify the second ammendment. What guarantees the prevention of another civil war. Then how can the civil war nullify the second ammendment if another war cannot be guaranteed to be prevented.

All of her points can be dismantled in this manner. You must be methodical, deliberate, and not become emotional.

Good luck and I admire your passion.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
I'm not from Illinois but I'm familiar with it.

berettaprofessor
March 21, 2013, 07:16 PM
I didn't read through the whole thread, but my advice would be to present to her a timeline of Hitler's (or any other dictators) rise to power; including confiscation of firearms....and if she says it couldn't happen today, ask her to explain how, in the 1920's, no one predicted WWII either. WWI was "the war to end all wars"

jdooner
March 21, 2013, 07:19 PM
If such were the case...women would carry itty bitty purses.

58limited
March 21, 2013, 08:12 PM
Originally Posted by 1KPerDay View Post
Why bother arguing with her? She's a loon. Go shooting.
Because she's not a loon... she's a very rational person (a CPA at that) she just believes those documents are less important than public safety... to wit:

"If I wanted to make the bubonic plague at my house the Federal Government would arrest me even though I'm not engaging in interstate commerce... how do they have that power? Because we let them have it for the sake of public safety."

She's wrong but she's not crazy.

Just because she is educated doesn't mean she isn't a loon. The old doctor next door to me is bats%#t crazy and always has been. To me, it is crazy for an educated person to believe that the Constitution is irrelevant.

Oh, the federal gov't would not arrest her for wanting to make bubonic plague, they would only do so if she did make it.

KTXdm9
March 21, 2013, 08:46 PM
Education doesn't equal sense. No offense, but it sounds like your aunt has the former, but is sorely lacking the latter.

All of her her assertions are emotion based drivel. Ask her for facts to back up what she is saying. Let the hilarity ensue.

Shanghai McCoy
March 21, 2013, 08:54 PM
A gun you hold in your hand and a purse you...put stuff in!:neener:
My wife let's me put my gun in her purse sometimes...:rolleyes:

larryh1108
March 21, 2013, 09:14 PM
My wife let's me put my gun in her purse sometimes...

Would that make it a man purse?

danez71
March 21, 2013, 09:16 PM
She may be able to count numbers well but she obviously doesnt have any deductive or inductive reasoning skills.

SharpsDressedMan
March 21, 2013, 09:22 PM
If I understand it, a FOID card represents a background check of a person who obviously does not have a criminal record, thus allowing them to possess the card and buy guns upon its presentation. Well, what happens when that Foid card holding person suddenly goes nuts, and uses that legitimately purchased gun to commit a crime? It has been known to happen. It really doesn't do much more than the NICS check does, at that point.

Ignition Override
March 21, 2013, 09:25 PM
gazpacho's idea for a sign, among many others, might make her think for herself.
Some of you saw the link to the Youtube video where people dressed and acting like southern VT "granola bar" (or many Madison WI) people offered to stick "No guns in this home" signs in peoples' front yards?

They tried it at the house of the insane NY newspaper editor who published the map of CCW permit holders.
They also tried it at Eric Holder's house, so they said.

It was strange, but nobody accepted the free sign...:confused:.....
So much for being morally superior.

beatledog7
March 21, 2013, 09:34 PM
In the interest of public safety, we're shutting down all highways, swimming pools, amusement parks...anything that can cause death or injury.

Oh, and we're stifling the opinions of everyone who doesn't agree with this agenda--letting anyone hear them would pose a risk to public safety.

So just sit in your subsidized, standardized house and eat government cheese while you watch the government-approved channels on your government-approved, low-energy consumption TV and make occasional trips to your government-approved toilet.

larryh1108
March 21, 2013, 10:00 PM
.... a closed mind is an empty mind...

SabbathWolf
March 21, 2013, 10:03 PM
Maybe he should just print out this thread and let her read it.....lol

G'dale Mike
March 21, 2013, 10:14 PM
She is educated beyond her intelligence. Isnt it interesting the parallels between today's liberals and Soviet era Communists. In Soviet Union, you gave up your land for Mother Russia, you ratted out your neighbor for keeping a small cache of home grown food for Mother Russia etc etc. the modern liberal says we should give up our Second Amendment Rites for our children, for our safety, for the betterment of our Nation, and just like in the old Soviet Union, the Govt was to look out for you and tend your every need.
I doubt you'd ever get through to her.

Rawss
March 21, 2013, 10:18 PM
Is she single? Does she need my lovin?

CmdrSlander
March 21, 2013, 10:22 PM
Is she single? Does she need my lovin?
Yes she is single...

but oh god why...

why...

:scrutiny::uhoh::what::barf:

USAF_Vet
March 21, 2013, 10:30 PM
If she is a numbers and money sort of person, explain to her the financial costs of what she proposes. How can anything that would bankrupt the nation, which is already teetering on the brink of financial collapse every other week, afford to implement such a massive undertaking. She doesn't believe in the constitution or rights, so don't even attempt to use those as a basis for your argument. Speak her language, which is numbers and money.

Certaindeaf
March 21, 2013, 10:35 PM
Is she small and frail? Buy some good jackboots.. that was a figure of speech. Ask her what she'd do against a 300lb thug.. or a great many.

rondog
March 21, 2013, 10:38 PM
Let me say this again.....

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You'll only waste your time and annoy the pig.

Tob
March 21, 2013, 11:29 PM
Maybe this is a mountain the OP simply must try to climb. Some of you may argue it isn't worth the effort, but I would disagree. Sometimes the immovable object must be moved, or at least the attempt must be made.

Things like this are what many live for. Useless? Maybe not. We'll never know until it is tried.

Shanghai McCoy
March 21, 2013, 11:55 PM
Would that make it a man purse?
It was a metaphor...;)

Agsalaska
March 22, 2013, 12:09 AM
Maybe this is a mountain the OP simply must try to climb. Some of you may argue it isn't worth the effort, but I would disagree. Sometimes the immovable object must be moved, or at least the attempt must be made.

Things like this are what many live for. Useless? Maybe not. We'll never know until it is tried.
For some maybe, but not me. I will argue and debate anyone with reasonable ideas from any side of the spectrum. But I will have nothing to do with the extremes on either side. I guess I applaud those that can, but I just cant anymore. It is not for me.

Big_John1961
March 22, 2013, 12:14 AM
Because she's not a loon... she's a very rational person (a CPA at that) she just believes those documents are less important than public safety... to wit:

"If I wanted to make the bubonic plague at my house the Federal Government would arrest me even though I'm not engaging in interstate commerce... how do they have that power? Because we let them have it for the sake of public safety."

She's wrong but she's not crazy

She's not so rational that she sees the folly of her arguments. It sounds to me like your aunt has been drinking Barry's Kool-Aid with some extra sugar.

Big_John1961
March 22, 2013, 12:22 AM
Working in a union for 21 years, surrounded by libs in one of the bluest states in the union, I've arrived at the conclusion that trying to convince people like your aunt about anything related to the 2nd Amendment is an extreme exercise in futility. I've been on that merry-go-round time and time again, and I won't do it any more. Give it up, dude, you will not change her mind. You'll only jack your own blood pressure and come away frustrated every time.

radar1972
March 22, 2013, 12:36 AM
Are you on the short list for a very large inheritance from this woman?

If so, perhaps agreeing to disagree is the best approach.

If not, I'd never darken her doorway again. You will not change her mind.

stampedeboss
March 22, 2013, 12:49 AM
Go read the April edition of the blue press. Interesting article on this very topic. For those of you who haven't heard of the Blue Press

HorseSoldier
March 22, 2013, 12:49 AM
My general response to all her ideas would be to quote crime stats from the UK on home invasion robberies, felonious assaults, and gun crime.

Victim disarmament does not make the world a safer place for law abiding citizens.

stampedeboss
March 22, 2013, 12:50 AM
The Blue Press is published by Dillion monthly, catalog with articles and pretty pictures.

InkEd
March 22, 2013, 12:56 AM
I am sorry but she is beyond any salvation. The only thing I can suggest is that you question her belief as to why the government is superior to the citizens?

Anmut
March 22, 2013, 01:00 AM
Because she's not a loon... she's a very rational person (a CPA at that) she just believes those documents are less important than public safety... to wit:

"If I wanted to make the bubonic plague at my house the Federal Government would arrest me even though I'm not engaging in interstate commerce... how do they have that power? Because we let them have it for the sake of public safety."

She's wrong but she's not crazy.
She's obviously a loon, no matter how much you love or respect her. Like the other guy said - forget wasting breath on people that can't understand simple logic. Go shooting.

Deanimator
March 22, 2013, 05:31 AM
You can no more "demolish" her delusions of a gun free world than you can demolish David Duke's delusions of a return to a pre-1860 America or Ayman al Zawahiri's delusion of a world wide caliphate.

You can't "refute" an irrational, hate inspired pseudo-religious fantasy.

meanmrmustard
March 22, 2013, 06:21 AM
My wife let's me put my gun in her purse sometimes...:rolleyes:
Mine said if I mess with her purse, she would sock me in the nose.

JRWhit
March 22, 2013, 06:32 AM
The "Gun Culture" is a bunch of idiots and weirdos and it should be destroyed.
This is your pathway to open her head a little. This tells me that her opinion

has come from hand picked sound bites and video clips of various fringe

elements that were delivered to her by agenda driven media. Unless she

believes you to be that quoted above, then you are the most persuasive

argument to combat her current mentality. After she is forced to admit that

you, being a part of the gun culture, are not what she was informed that

you are, then you may begin with the suggestion that there may be other

miss-informed areas of her argument. Insist to her that the information

she receives is coming from the same people who say that her own nephew

is an idiot weirdo. If she is wrong on that and you can get her to acknowledge

it, then the door is cracked and you can proceed to push it open.

KMatch
March 22, 2013, 10:07 AM
Let's reverse this a moment: Suppose someone were to change any of YOUR minds? Turn you into gun haters? Would it work? Would ANY amount of data, history, logic, head pounding, face punching, change YOUR mind? It wouldn't mine! Some people simply believe what they believe and NO amount of contrary evidence will change it. It's best present your case and then move on if there's no results. Spend your time where it can do more good. I can tell any of you straight up : good luck changing my mind on ANYTHING! It happens, but not with force or ramming logic down my throat. It has to come to me on my own time.

Creature
March 22, 2013, 10:18 AM
"If I wanted to make the bubonic plague at my house the Federal Government would arrest me even though I'm not engaging in interstate commerce... how do they have that power? Because we let them have it for the sake of public safety."

I have always hated this line of thought/argument.

A gun is very discriminate. I can target a person who is standing shoulder to shoulder with two other people and not injure, maim or kill those two persons standing on either side of my target.

Bombs, bazookas and biological weapons are indiscriminate...and thus subject to different regulations than firearms.

jbrown50
March 22, 2013, 10:33 AM
As others have already pointed out, your aunt is of the totalitarian government/dictatorship mindset. People like that are why the founders wisely foresaw a need for the Second Amendment to begin with.

Her issues are more psychological than anything else.

Gun control is about control.

627PCFan
March 22, 2013, 10:36 AM
I wouldnt bother with her.
But

2nd Amendment is in the constitiution.
Constitution is the founding American Document
Shes anti-american.

OilyPablo
March 22, 2013, 11:14 AM
Don't give up. Enlist allies. Plant the seed.

Vector
March 22, 2013, 11:46 AM
-The 2nd Amendment has been irrelevant since the Civil War, the Heller decision was a product of the corrupt Roberts Court.





No personal offense, but your aunt sounds very uninformed and downright ignorant when it comes to understanding the Constitution or anything related to firearms.

While I could address a multitude of her listed points, I'd rather sum everything up as it relates to the 2A.

Does she feel that all aspects of the Constitution are irrelevant since the CW? If so, she must oppose all the rulings that have come down from the SCOTUS ever since. If not then let her know that we as citizens of a free Republic do not get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we like and disregard the rest. However if society ever decides a certain aspect of it is outdated, there is always the amendment process, which we have used in the past.
Somehow I doubt she will answer that she objects to the 1A or 4A for example, so right there you have won that debate. More importantly try to get her to see beyond what she perceives as a perfect little world she lives in, and try to get her to understand that if the SHTF, only the 2A will be able to protect the rest of our freedoms from being eviscerated.

Lastly, as to her derision of the "corrupt Roberts Court" does she feel the same way about ObamaCare passing with his vote?
I ask because I have no idea what her political bent is, and if she is a left wing partisan, most of the aforementioned will go in one ear & pout the other. Still we should always at least try to persuade the other side lest we become so outnumbered that all our rights and freedoms will be lost to them some day.
It might take a few hundred years, but I can picture a society of defenseless Eloi dependent on someone else to provide for their very existence. While Weena was very hot in the Time Machine, I'd hate to think my future generations living like sheep, waiting for the slaughter.

A9miqKm0aB0

`

Deanimator
March 22, 2013, 03:40 PM
It might take a few hundred years, but I can picture a society of defenseless Eloi dependent on someone else to provide for their very existence.
"A few hundred years"???

Look at the United Kingdom TODAY.

From wanting to ban pointed TABLE KNIVES to wanting to ban glass BEER MUGS, Britain has been transformed into the world's largest group home.

danez71
March 22, 2013, 09:27 PM
Let's reverse this a moment: Suppose someone were to change any of YOUR minds? Turn you into gun haters? Would it work? Would ANY amount of data, history, logic, head pounding, face punching, change YOUR mind? It wouldn't mine! Some people simply believe what they believe and NO amount of contrary evidence will change it.

Quite possibly YES.

You see, I listen and take into account logic, history, data to make up my own mind. And I'm open minded enough to change.

Otherwise we are doomed to repeat hostorical mistakes and never evolve as a society. We'd still believe the world is flat, and the having a King is great.

:barf: Not for me, Thanks.

It just so happens that after looking at the data, logic, and history, it has convinced me that the 2A is a good idea.

JRWhit
March 22, 2013, 09:37 PM
Let's reverse this a moment: Suppose someone were to change any of YOUR minds? Turn you into gun haters? Would it work?
Well of course not. I am right after all.:neener:

JFtheGR8
March 22, 2013, 10:03 PM
Ask her for hard facts from peer reviewed sources and not anecdotal sound bytes offered by the liberal media. Look up your own data from credible sources to refute her claims. I believe this approach would impress the most since she is a product of higher education and more than likely influenced by liberal professors. I would bet she's written more than a few research papers during those college years and will understand what's involved with your data mining expedition. If the facts don't work then forget about it as she's unreachable. The bottom line is that we as American citizens have a right, if not an outright obligation, to protect our homes and country.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

gym
March 22, 2013, 10:11 PM
I'm surprised you got this many responses on what is an obvious personnel problem.

greghvac
March 22, 2013, 10:50 PM
just take her out shooting, see if it changes her mind.

Ignition Override
March 23, 2013, 12:22 AM
greghvac: Thumbs up! This has worked with many people.
But with a small round such as .22LR.

Your idea might be the only way to grab her attention, by using a 'stage prop'.
The OP has nothing to lose.

r1derbike
March 23, 2013, 12:45 AM
People who embrace myopic emotional slant cannot perceive rational, sound logic. They are incapable of separating truth from fiction, because of their bias. They cannot remove themselves from the throes of ignorance, that's how they perceive us. Since when did an anti ever admit they were woefully ignorant, and wrong about their beliefs, branded into their gray matter? It would be like losing their favorite teddy bear toy, or finding out there is no Kris Kringle.

Antis cannot separate fact from fiction, as they have no duty to research the truth, and are blissful in their ignorance. Blissful to be brainwashed by our media, instead of being suspect of everything that is printed, or shown on TV.

They have lost the ability to see the facts, or if they have seen the facts, they dismiss them with a wave of an ignorant hand.

I wish you luck on this conversion attempt. If she concedes a few points, consider it a victory and take her to a range, as she might be more receptive to face her fears.

Good luck!

If you enjoyed reading about "Help Me Demolish My Anti-Gun Aunt's Gun Control Scheme..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!