Interesting Conversation with an ANTI


PDA






HKGuns
May 2, 2013, 10:01 AM
There was a post a while back, can't find it now, where the website was using a 10 year old girl to promote an anti-gun agenda.

There was a contact link so I wrote very simply, shame on your for using a 10 year old to promote your agenda.

"She" wrote back and the conversation is very enlightening and reveals the real agenda and how twisted some people have become.

Here are a few quotes from this woman, who from what I can tell is an attorney working for the Dept. of Homeland Security.

I do not agree with the Heller decision to the extent that it says that the right to bear arms is an individual right.

Further to her disagreement with Heller and her claim of ambiguity in the 2nd Amendment.
That is why I am in favor of repealing the second amendment and then enacting statutory protections for gun owners.

I do not think most civilians should have guns, especially assault rifles.

You have to pass a test and get a license to drive a car; why not something similar for guns?

If we repeal the second amendment (so owning a gun is no longer a "right"), there would be more freedom to enact sensible regulations.

The history you discuss was over 200 years ago. Much has changed.

I called her ignorant and she took exception to that, I guess she doesn't understand what ignorant means. Overall, a very revealing perspective into how the ANTI's think. I'm even more concerned this person appears to work in DHS.

If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting Conversation with an ANTI" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
tyeo098
May 2, 2013, 10:10 AM
The history you discuss was over 200 years ago. Much has changed.
Puckle gun.

The only thing that has changed is the generations have gotten stupider since the '70s and the resulting 'I want everything provided for me' nanny state was glad to step in.

bolthead
May 2, 2013, 11:07 AM
If we repeal the second amendment (so owning a gun is no longer a "right"), there would be more freedom to enact sensible regulations.

I find the ambiguous term "sensible regulations" in the above quote very alarming. I really think that she means more than just gun control. I understand it as in her opinion there will be more "freedom" for DHS to do whatever they want once they remove the ability of people to resist.

Tommygunn
May 2, 2013, 11:07 AM
The history you discuss was over 200 years ago. Much has changed.

You are probably not going to make much headway against this lady. If I were to try I'd point out that her comment above is a weakness. The Bill of Rights are all equally old. I might try to point out her rights to free speech, assembly, to remain secure in her papers and possessions, to practice her religion of preference, are all protected by amendments that are just as old as the second, and would she be so dismissive of those rights based on an argument of age? She's either cherry-picking or she would agree the other rights are just as suspect as she views the right to keep and bear arms.


It is always amazing and saddening to me to see how many people are not only willing to see our Constitutional rights eroded, but are in fact anxious to see them gone.
Scary. Very very scary, indeed.

brickeyee
May 2, 2013, 11:23 AM
You can always try to point out that the First amendment is also over 200 years old, and we seem to have little trouble applying it to new technology, like the phone.

You do not need a license to eercise your first amendment rights

As for disagreeing with Heller, she lost.

No one cares what HER opinion is on Heller since she does not st on the SCOTUS.

NorthBorder
May 2, 2013, 11:40 AM
Maybe you should applaud her for being such an articulate, though misinformed, little girl.

BaltimoreBoy
May 2, 2013, 11:53 AM
"...generations have gotten stupider since the '70s..."

Have to agree, except that would be the 1770's. Even the later 19th century didn't understand the constitution.

340PD
May 2, 2013, 12:04 PM
"The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound. Do you agree?"

Thursday45
May 2, 2013, 12:07 PM
You have to pass a test and get a license to drive a car; why not something similar for guns?


1) because driving a car isn't a constitutional right.
2) because requiring driving tests has done so well in cutting down speeders, drunks and unlicensed drivers :rolleyes:

DanTheFarmer
May 2, 2013, 12:42 PM
Hey, at least she (and the others who agree with her) are honest. They want to repeal the 2nd ammendment. Go for it. The process to do so is well laid out. Bring your ideas forward and let the pros and cons be stated and votes counted.

That is a far superior position (IMHO) to the current hypocritical process of politicians publically stating not to be against the 2nd ammendment while doing everything possible to enact procedures, processes, regulations, and laws that either gut, countermand, or ignore it.

Dan

ShooterMcGavin
May 2, 2013, 12:59 PM
Hey, at least she (and the others who agree with her) are honest. They want to repeal the 2nd ammendment. Go for it. The process to do so is well laid out. Bring your ideas forward and let the pros and cons be stated and votes counted.

That is a far superior position (IMHO) to the current hypocritical process of politicians publically stating not to be against the 2nd ammendment while doing everything possible to enact procedures, processes, regulations, and laws that either gut, countermand, or ignore it.

Dan
Absolutely!! I agree!

Carl N. Brown
May 2, 2013, 01:07 PM
What do antis know about existing gun laws?

Describe buying a new gun from an FFL gun shop. Download and print the PDF of a 4473 from the atf.gov website, show or email them a copy. Better yet, take an anti to a gun shop and show them what a legal gun buy is like.

Most really adamant "we need more gun control" types do not know what the existing gun laws are.

BrooksD
May 2, 2013, 02:06 PM
"I do not agree with the Heller decision to the extent that it says that the right to bear arms is an individual right"

I don't agree with Roe v Wade. It's still the law until it's overturned or vacated.

"That is why I am in favor of repealing the second amendment and then enacting statutory protections for gun owners. "

At least she's honest. The founders put a process in place so get a political action committee going if you think it has legs. What she really wants is a UK style system where only the privileged few have access to firearms via private clubs. How very elitist of her.

"You have to pass a test and get a license to drive a car; why not something similar for guns? "

Ahhh..the omnipresent "car" argument - one of my favorites. This fails on two counts. First there is no "right to keep and drive cars" in the BOR. Second, no I do not have to pass a test and get a license to own a car. I can purchase a car and use it on my own land for my own purposes without a license from the state. I only need a license when I want to use said vehicle on public roads. Strangely enough though, I do have to "pass" a NICS check to exercise a fundamental right on my own property.

"If we repeal the second amendment (so owning a gun is no longer a "right"), there would be more freedom to enact sensible regulations."

She's a bit "Captain Obvious" here. Of course when you ask them to define "sensible" you can never quite pin them down to exactly what is enough.

"The history you discuss was over 200 years ago. Much has changed."

Not sure what the context was here...was she going down the weapons have changed path?

She doesn't sound "convertable" to me and you are wasting your time. Being the fact that she's a lawyer, she probably thinks she "knows it all" already. Don't let that deter you from wrestling her into a logical corner

627PCFan
May 2, 2013, 02:17 PM
Not going to pick apart her arguments. Everyones done a great job of that already.

I used a new tactic the other day with an aquitance. When you know you can't educate and they are dug in and blind...Frustrate. Frustrate them. They get frustrated, argumentative until they collapse upon themselves and walk away and give up.

medalguy
May 2, 2013, 02:26 PM
I had a similar argument....er, discussion. with a friend who is pretty liberal. She was saying that the 2A was written in a time when the founding fathers never imagined the variety of weapons available to the average citizen these days, and how it needs to be updated to prevent "assault weapons" fron getting into the wrong hands(ie, honest gun owners).

I responded that yes the Bill of Rights was written a long time ago, but it was not a concrete document but rather a framework into which we must fit our current laws. She agreed with this part. Then I went on to inform her that if we need to amend it to cover things like "assault weapons" then we also need to amend it to cover things such as the internet, IMs, Twitter, Facebook, cell phones, and all the problems we are having with these modern communications devices. Maybe we need to have some laws to require permits and licenses to use these. She just looked at me and didn't have a fast answer to that.

Sambo82
May 2, 2013, 02:38 PM
You have to pass a test and get a license to drive a car; why not something similar for guns?

I really cringe that this argument is still brought up. Not only, as other have said is the right to keep arms a Constitutional right, but you DON'T have to "pass a test" to drive a car. Or buy a car. You can buy a car and drive it on your own property without any regulation whatsoever. You certainly can't do that with a firearm, as you must pass a background check first.

Now to drive on a public road you must be licensed, but in almost every state the same applies to carrying a firearm in public, and most would agree that the fees, fingerprinting, wait time, CLEO signoff etc are much more stringent (in most states) with CCW permits than they are with driver's licenses.

So firearms are already regulated more strictly than cars are. I wonder if knowing that the anti's will finally be content with the regulations that are in place. :evil:

TCB in TN
May 2, 2013, 03:06 PM
You have to pass a test and get a license to drive a car; why not something similar for guns?
1) because driving a car isn't a constitutional right.
2) because requiring driving tests has done so well in cutting down speeders, drunks and unlicensed drivers


I will disagree here. The real reason that we must be lisc to drive a vehicle is that the founders didn't fully realize exactly how stupid future generations would be. In their time one did not have to be lisc to ride a horse, drive a wagon, sail a ship etc. There was not the slightest thought that individual travel would need any regulation. They were extremely short sighted when it came to realizing the the depths of stupidity that our modern society would stoop to.

ShooterMcGavin
May 2, 2013, 03:15 PM
I will disagree here. The real reason that we must be lisc to drive a vehicle is that the founders didn't fully realize exactly how stupid future generations would be. In their time one did not have to be lisc to ride a horse, drive a wagon, sail a ship etc. There was not the slightest thought that individual travel would need any regulation. They were extremely short sighted when it came to realizing the the depths of stupidity that our modern society would stoop to.
True.

I think you forgot one thing though, the taxation that licensing allows... They didn't foresee that either.

brickeyee
May 2, 2013, 03:17 PM
So everyone who gets her license will be allowed to carry in public?
Like we are allowed to drive our cars on the public roads?

daehawc
May 2, 2013, 03:22 PM
I'm concerned at the premise that if we repeal the 2A that somehow the "right" goes away. The founders position were that some rights were inherent to all people and given to them by their creator. The 2A does not give you any rights, it simply codifies that the Federal government has no ability to infringe on your natural rights.

iiranger
May 2, 2013, 03:26 PM
#2). "1) because driving a car isn't a constitutional right."
Actually the registration and drivers license are at the root for tax purposes. They want to know who has what and who can operate it so they can tax it.

My mother told of getting her first drivers license by sending a check for $0.25 to the county clerk and it was in return mail. No test, etc. Yes, "twenty five cents."

#1). It is an attempt to return to monarchial control the founding fathers sought to pretty much end. Before and in many places today, the friends of the king (or mob boss, remember when Kennedy's body guard got stopped trying to walk onto a plane with a pistol... oh he forgot, had to worry about his boss...) had weapons and about anything else they wanted and if you were not persona grata you had better know how to say "yes boss" and jump or you got kicked and you might get kicked anyway...

Suggest this genius move to a more civilized land. England (or Canada) or ??? They have "gun control" and very low "gun crime rates." Often the World Almanac has "crime rates" for other cities/countries... Media does not want a fair comparison. (Japan used to have the highest civilized country murder rate...) Enjoy. Happy Trails.

PGT
May 2, 2013, 03:47 PM
info on why you think said person was a lawyer with DHS?

readyeddy
May 2, 2013, 03:55 PM
I agree with posts 10 and 11. We need more anti's like her. Honest people that acknowledge that the 2A needs to be repealed if they want to ban guns, which also means that any effort to ban guns is prohibited by the 2A.

The rest of her message are policy points as they have no current support in law.

TheSaint
May 2, 2013, 06:15 PM
From her correspondence:

I do not think

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/228/250/18206303-d910-4dd8-82a5-6af68dc976f5.jpg

HKGuns
May 2, 2013, 06:33 PM
Being the fact that she's a lawyer, she probably thinks she "knows it all" already.

Great suggestions from nearly everyone. You're right. She's one of those who thinks that because she has a law degree she is smarter and therefore more important than anyone else.

One of the first things she pointed out was that she was an attorney.

I hit her hard and fast though when she questioned what laws I thought were sensible. My response was repeal 1934 - 1968 and 1986.

TheSaint
May 2, 2013, 06:34 PM
I've known a few good lawyers in my time that do good work on behalf of citizens. That being said, there's a substantial number of them that are as arrogant as all get out, and take every opportunity to inform you of your inferiority as a non-lawyer.

jbrown50
May 2, 2013, 07:59 PM
The anti-gun folks are so focused on achieving their goal of a government controlled utopia that they've totally abandoned any semblance of rational thinking.

Amending the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment with subsequent bans and confiscations (even if they could somehow accomplish it without civil war) would open up the flood gates to the largest firearms black market the world has ever seen.

The results of the 18th Amendment was just a little taste of it.

PGT
May 2, 2013, 08:34 PM
One of the first things she pointed out was that she was an attorney.

a DHS lawyer?

Nanook
May 2, 2013, 08:45 PM
I seem to remember from high school that if the Bill of Rights was not added to the Constitution it would not have been ratified.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me it wouldn't be that simple as to just remove the 2nd Amendment.

I may be off base here, since high school is 40 years in the past.

welshdude
May 2, 2013, 08:47 PM
You are probably not going to make much headway against this lady. If I were to try I'd point out that her comment above is a weakness. The Bill of Rights are all equally old. I might try to point out her rights to free speech, assembly, to remain secure in her papers and possessions, to practice her religion of preference, are all protected by amendments that are just as old as the second, and would she be so dismissive of those rights based on an argument of age? She's either cherry-picking or she would agree the other rights are just as suspect as she views the right to keep and bear arms.


It is always amazing and saddening to me to see how many people are not only willing to see our Constitutional rights eroded, but are in fact anxious to see them gone.
Scary. Very very scary, indeed.
Her arguments and pomposity are very similar to the Cruz/Feinstein exchange at a Senate meeting a few months back. He asked her very much the same questions. She got huffy and tried to deride Senator Cruz by avoiding the question. That and referring to him as 'the Junior Senator' several times. She boasted of 30 years in the Senate...I'd say her sell-by date is WAY overdue. Just like the woman in the OP. You can't argue with stupidity and ignorance. One can fix ignorance, though. If they're open to being educated. Problem is most liberals think they already are...:rolleyes:

justice06rr
May 2, 2013, 09:36 PM
Wow what a total ignoramus. Most anti's are blind leading the blind. They have no clue and no common sense whatsoever. No use in arguing with them IMO.

I wonder what that lady would do if her house got broken into and all she has is a bat...

danez71
May 2, 2013, 11:51 PM
"The history you discuss was over 200 years ago. Much has changed."


Not sure what the context was here...was she going down the weapons have changed path?


Just a guess on my part... but in my experience, when an anti goes down that road they are saying the our current govt isn't any threat to the population.


No genocide threat...No religious persecution threat...

No threat of taking away our rights. Oh.. wait... never mind :uhoh:

herrwalther
May 3, 2013, 12:29 AM
It amazes me how some Antis think. How the First Amendment can apply to texts and Facebook but as soon as the Second gets mentioned "Oh the Constitution is out of date." Really? Hypocrisy stinks like a bloated horse in a Texas sun.

mdauben
May 3, 2013, 10:47 AM
It amazes me how some Antis seem to lack the ability to logically think.
Fixed that for you. ;)

chrisb507
May 3, 2013, 12:58 PM
I don't think most antis simply want to "take our guns" or achieve a government controlled utopia. The just want to "feel" safer.

I usually defuse these arguments by asking: How would (background checks/"assault weapons" bans/licensing/etc.) ACTUALLY MAKE you safer?

Warners
May 3, 2013, 02:07 PM
Luckily for her, there IS a method to get the 2nd amendment (or any other) repealed. It's quite simple, actually. All you have to do is THIS:

For an amendment to be proposed or repealed, it requires two/thirds of both federal legislative bodies -- House and Senate -- to vote in the affirmative (two/thirds in the House, two/thirds in the Senate).

It also requires two/thirds of the state legislatures of the 50 states to vote in the affirmative.

The move to propose or repeal can begin with the American people, with a majority of the populations in two thirds of the 50 states voting for the amendment or its repeal. However, even if the people do this, the push to propose or repeal still has to garner two/thirds House, two/thirds Senate, and two/thirds of all 50 state legislatures.

The difficulty required to change this amendment ought to give us pause. For our Founders went out of their way to be sure the rights protected by the Bill of Rights could not be easily stripped of their amendments.

So have at it, Ms or Mrs Gun-Grabber.....but I'd say you have your work cut out for you. :D

Warner

Elm Creek Smith
May 3, 2013, 02:16 PM
I've had anti-rights people sneer that we don't have to worry about the British invading anymore and that we 1) don't have to fight the Indians or 2) hunt to feed our families.

They get upset and call me a "Fascist" or a "NAZI," neither of which they can define, or a traitor when I point out that the Minutemen and militia at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge were resisting the "duly constituted government" and its "proper governmental authorities." When I point out that the criminal street gangs that prowl our large metropolitan areas and motorcycle gangs are just as dangerous, or even moreso, than the Indians, they scoff that we have the police to protect us. They don't want to hear about Warren vs. The District of Columbia or Castle Rock vs. Gonzales that decided that the police have no duty to protect individuals. Finally, they decry "blood sports" when I explain that hunting is the only viable wildlife management tool available to us unless they want us to reintroduce wolves and grizzly bears all across the United States. They also hate it when I point out that game is naturally organic and free of water/salt solutions, antibiotics, and hormones.

The anti-rights people are anti-freedom and anti-health.

ECS

Bartholomew Roberts
May 3, 2013, 02:45 PM
You have to pass a test and get a license to drive a car; why not something similar for guns?

You have to pass a test and get a license to drive a car on public roads - not to purchase or sell a car or use it on your own property. As Dave Kopel already pointed out, I'd be delighted if guns were regulated as little as cars.


The history you discuss was over 200 years ago. Much has changed.

Which of the remaining Bill of Rights are subject to the 200 year ago test? You only get as much privacy as any home in a 20 family village with multiple families living in one house? Cruel and unusual punishment is interpreted by what people considered "OK" 200 years ago (public flogging, hangings, stocks in the town square?). The First Amendment is limited to only the Gutenberg press?

Disappointing to see such weak reasoning from a government attorney. For someone who FEELS so strongly she is pushing a social media campaign, she hasn't even spent 10 minutes researching the issue.

If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting Conversation with an ANTI" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!