What to do when attacked for pro-2nd Amendment views


PDA






TooTaxed
December 29, 2013, 05:21 PM
It is irritating when anti-gun people who have not bothered to verify bad statistics fed to them by anti-gun sources attack me for my pro-2nd Amendment stance! So, assuming the NRA needs to publicise the truth more, when I return home I make a donation to the NRA of $25 to $100, depending on the insolence of the encounter.

Now, here's the trick! I make the donation in the name of the anti-gun person with their address, explaining to the NRA and requesting they send a letter thanking them for the donation!

If you enjoyed reading about "What to do when attacked for pro-2nd Amendment views" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
phil dirt
December 29, 2013, 06:17 PM
"What to do when attacked for pro-2nd Amendment views. Now, here's the trick! I make the donation in the name of the anti-gun person with their address, explaining to the NRA and requesting they send a letter thanking them for the donation! Hint: Check Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry"
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Wow! What a great idea to contribute to our cause in the name of these elected criminals.

TooTaxed
December 29, 2013, 07:10 PM
Actually, I was referring to the locals who attacked me...you should see the horror and amazement they display! I don't know how the Pelosi, Kerry et all got into the post...that was originally a note on the bottom of my normal transmittal and wasn't on the body of the post when I reviewed it before posting.

oneounceload
December 29, 2013, 08:34 PM
You might want to get yourself prepared so you can successfully state your case and make your side of the argument....(notice I did NOT say "defend yourself")

Mauser lover
December 29, 2013, 09:11 PM
When I saw the title I instantly thought... DUH! Draw, present, fire.... But it seems I had the wrong impression of "attacked".

You most likely do not want to do that if we are talking about ridicule, arguments... etc. Probably having correct statistics, polls, numbers of everything you can think of... again, etc... would be the best course of action.

I think that donating in these people's names is a great idea! However, is your name also on the note that they get from the NRA? It sounds almost as if you could accidently provoke an "attack".

ridurall
December 31, 2013, 04:18 PM
I purchased a NRA membership for one of my anti-gun liberal cousins several years ago. It back fired when he purchased a membership for me to the ACLU. It took years and a change of email addresses to get off all the kill the babies, save the whales, bunny huggers and send money to help the gay's groups that had connections with the ACLU. I have never understood how people that are "bunny huggers" can be pro abortion but it seems like they all are. Needless to say I never purchased another NRA or other pro gun membership to a liberal again.

tuj
December 31, 2013, 04:36 PM
Despite the ACLU's views on the 2A as a collective right and their disapproval of DC v. Heller, the ACLU has fought some of the most important cases in our legal system and continues to protect our rights of free speech in the digital age, one of the few organizations that still cares about this (besides EFF).

Best thing to do when you talk to an anti? Just ignore them and walk away. No need to be snarky and buy them an NRA membership in their name, although that is an interesting tactic.

I know I am in the very small and very UN-vocal minority, but I am pro-2A and anti-NRA-ILA. USA Shooting can have my money to sponsor actual shooters and promote the sport, something the NRA used to actively do until the infamous 'Cincinnati' convention.

Seriously, last time the NRA-ILA called me, I started talking to the guy about his shooting. He didn't really shoot at all, he owned a Glock and shot it once a year. I support his right fully, but at the same time he didn't get my money.

But I digress. I talk to lots of people I disagree with on political issues. I have to work with many who are quite vocal. I find it is best to just ignore them or at worst, use the Socratic method and pretend like you don't understand the issue, asking questions from a pointed view.

Master Blaster
December 31, 2013, 04:38 PM
I learned long ago to push the ignore button. I then teach as many folks to shoot as I can. In the past year I have turned 5 dedicated liberals and their children into new shooters. Trap shooting with a nice shotgun seems to have wide appeal. After all the President and the VP both like shotguns and even shoot trap. This is much more effective than arguing with those who know All.

tuj
December 31, 2013, 04:40 PM
Absolutely right! I have showed people who would have NEVER thought they would have liked shooting the sport and they have embraced it or at least had a blast.

Deltaboy
December 31, 2013, 04:52 PM
Well I just downloaded some facts from the FBI, GAO,and the NRA then I print them off and keep them handly.

BudgetBucks1
December 31, 2013, 05:04 PM
I usually keep my response short with the quote "When seconds count the police are only minutes away." Being in law enforcement myself that statement usually shuts them up pretty quickly.

phil dirt
December 31, 2013, 07:48 PM
tuj said,"I know I am in the very small and very UN-vocal minority, but I am pro-2A and anti-NRA-ILA. USA Shooting can have my money to sponsor actual shooters and promote the sport, something the NRA used to actively do until the infamous 'Cincinnati' convention.

Seriously, last time the NRA-ILA called me, I started talking to the guy about his shooting. He didn't really shoot at all, he owned a Glock and shot it once a year. I support his right fully, but at the same time he didn't get my money."

_____________________________________________________________________________________

I am thankful that you represent, as you put it, a "very small and UN- vocal minority." If not for NRA-ILA, there would be far more restrictions on my Second Amendment rights. In fact, my guess is that neither you or I would be allowed to own a gun! You claim to support the Second Amendment. Have you ever given a dime to the Second Amendment Foundation?

goon
December 31, 2013, 08:18 PM
I've only engaged in one conversation with a truly rabid anti. It was in college, and it came about because he made a disparaging comment about the local police having been issued M-4 clones to be kept in their police cars. I responded with "Well... I think you'd sing a different tune if someone wandered in here and opened fire with a Kalashnikov."
He shut up (and several other people in the classroom looked at me and nodded).

With people who are anti out of lack of experience with guns or from incorrect facts, I just take them out with a 10/22 and a couple hundred rounds. Seems to work.

Queen_of_Thunder
December 31, 2013, 08:28 PM
tuj said,"I know I am in the very small and very UN-vocal minority, but I am pro-2A and anti-NRA-ILA. USA Shooting can have my money to sponsor actual shooters and promote the sport, something the NRA used to actively do until the infamous 'Cincinnati' convention.

Seriously, last time the NRA-ILA called me, I started talking to the guy about his shooting. He didn't really shoot at all, he owned a Glock and shot it once a year. I support his right fully, but at the same time he didn't get my money."

_____________________________________________________________________________________

I am thankful that you represent, as you put it, a "very small and UN- vocal minority." If not for NRA-ILA, there would be far more restrictions on my Second Amendment rights. In fact, my guess is that neither you or I would be allowed to own a gun! You claim to support the Second Amendment. Have you ever given a dime to the Second Amendment Foundation?
So how much shooting does someone have to do before you are willing to step up and get involved in protecting or 2nd Amendment Rights.

wgaynor
December 31, 2013, 09:59 PM
Arguing with a fool is pointless. Rarely will you change someone's opinion because they are so intent on changing yours.

I often come across people that are extremely opposite of my position concerning many topics, including the 2nd amendment. When this happens, I usually say my thoughts and just walk away. Usually the other person turns angry, gets emotional, and all that. Let them. Just shows them for the fool they are.

Spend your effort educating the younger generation and those that are fence sitters.

KUSA
December 31, 2013, 11:00 PM
Just tell them it's your god given right and if they want to infringe on that right they need to bring something for lead poisoning with them.
Make sure you take a picture of their expression.

coloradokevin
January 1, 2014, 04:09 AM
The answer, I believe, all depends on who you're talking to. I know some people I simply won't even entertain the conversation with, as they believe with every ounce of their being that they are right, and I am misguided... for those folks, the only thing I could imagine possibly changing their mind would be the unfortunate circumstance of them finding that they are in need of a gun and don't have one (by then it may be too late).

For the fence sitters, or those who come across and mildly or naively anti-gun, I simply state my case and arguments politely, and leave it at that.

ChaoSS
January 1, 2014, 08:52 AM
Just tell them it's your god given right and if they want to infringe on that right they need to bring something for lead poisoning with them.
Make sure you take a picture of their expression.
Threatening someone's life because they disagree with you is a good way to turn more people against us.

58limited
January 1, 2014, 10:41 AM
The answer, I believe, all depends on who you're talking to. I know some people I simply won't even entertain the conversation with, as they believe with every ounce of their being that they are right, and I am misguided... for those folks, the only thing I could imagine possibly changing their mind would be the unfortunate circumstance of them finding that they are in need of a gun and don't have one (by then it may be too late).

For the fence sitters, or those who come across and mildly or naively anti-gun, I simply state my case and arguments politely, and leave it at that.
This. I can generally tell whether someone is open or closed minded and choose my battles accordingly.

Tom609
January 1, 2014, 11:13 AM
tuj had it right,... "I talk to lots of people I disagree with on political issues. I have to work with many who are quite vocal. I find it is best to just ignore them or at worst, use the Socratic method and pretend like you don't understand the issue, asking questions from a pointed view."

This is a great tactic to make them more relaxed and able to explain their position beyond the simplistic talking point that they've bought into.

KUSA
January 2, 2014, 12:33 AM
Threatening someone's life because they disagree with you is a good way to turn more people against us.

You took it too seriously. You aren't going to change the mind of the die hard lib so just piss them off.

goon
January 2, 2014, 12:42 AM
You took it too seriously. You aren't going to change the mind of the die hard lib so just piss them off.

Maybe you won't change their minds, but that still doesn't mean you have to be exactly what they stereotype us as. You'd be better off to be polite or say nothing than to do that.

Davek1977
January 2, 2014, 04:17 AM
You aren't going to change the mind of the die hard lib so just piss them off.

Which does what to further the idea of gun rights? What purpose does just "pissing them off" serve? Who does it benefit? If you can't be an ambassador for the shooting sports, shutting one's mouth may be a better option. Becoming the epitome of their stereotype hurts our agenda far more than it helps us.

ChaoSS
January 2, 2014, 04:47 AM
You took it too seriously. You aren't going to change the mind of the die hard lib so just piss them off.
Maybe you should start taking things more seriously.

These sorts of discussions rarely are without spectators, or at least those who find out about it after the fact, and many of those people may be those who could be influenced, if not for your petulant behavior.

HexHead
January 2, 2014, 07:45 AM
Threatening someone's life because they disagree with you is a good way to turn more people against us.
They're already against us. You lose nothing.

KUSA
January 2, 2014, 11:25 AM
They're already against us. You lose nothing.

This is part of my point.

I just love showing my ARs off at family functions when my libtard mother in law is there. She can't stand it but it's so funny to me.

LeonCarr
January 2, 2014, 11:37 AM
I normally just say, "I understand how you feel, but just keep in mind that when it is all said and done there are two type of people in this world...gun owners and victims."

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

goon
January 2, 2014, 01:29 PM
They're already against us. You lose nothing.

They're already against us and you probably won't change their minds.

But it's not either "us" or "them" because there are a lot of people in the middle. You don't look like a responsible adult to the people in the middle by slinging out threats or acting like a pissy seventeen year old.

So we do lose a lot by acting like that.

Davek1977
January 2, 2014, 02:53 PM
They're already against us. You lose nothing

You certainly don't gain anything, and you may put off any fence-sitters who overhear you run your mouth. Becoming the stereotypical macho tough guy wannabe gun owner does nothing for our cause whatsoever. I'd venture to say such attitudes can hurt our sport and our cause. Everything one says or does has an effect of some sort. Its up to us to determine what kind of image we want to project to the world. KUSA is free to do or say as he pleases, certainly, but its always good to be cognizant of the effect our actions may have on anyone who may be observing us at any given time

KUSA
January 2, 2014, 03:21 PM
You certainly don't gain anything, and you may put off any fence-sitters who overhear you run your mouth. Becoming the stereotypical macho tough guy wannabe gun owner does nothing for our cause whatsoever. I'd venture to say such attitudes can hurt our sport and our cause. Everything one says or does has an effect of some sort. Its up to us to determine what kind of image we want to project to the world. KUSA is free to do or say as he pleases, certainly, but its always good to be cognizant of the effect our actions may have on anyone who may be observing us at any given time

You have to know your audience. Sorry if I stirred the pot too much here.
Really though, the comment I made about lead poisoning is no different than saying "from my cold dead hands".

ATLDave
January 2, 2014, 04:57 PM
You have to judge whether the person is too emotionally worked up at that moment to have a calm, rational discussion. If they are, then politely disengaging is the best thing you can do; further discussion will only entrench them and give them a concrete episode to think about that may motivate them to take political action (give money to MAIG, call congressman, vote, etc.). Agitating the already-agitated may feel good, but no positive outcome will obtain. Resist the impulse.

If they're merely of a different view than you, but you have the relationship or the communication skills to plant some seeds, then have a dialogue. (If you don't, see above.) There are plenty of people who were pro-gun-control at some point who changed their minds (FWIW, I'm one of them, though I was never generally anti-gun; I just thought the AWB in 1994 was a good thing, though in retrospect it was clearly a big waste of time). Talking about rights, the constitution, etc., are all unlikely to persuade them, unless they are very serious civil libertarians and you can make equivalent commitments to the civil liberties that they care most about. Most people who are pro-gun-control are that way because they believe gun control is/can be effective.

Study the evidence on that score. Be prepared to point out things like the fact that the UK and Australia did not get low homicide rates as a result of gun control - they had lower homicide rates than us before their gun control. Or that there is no correlation between different states' gun control laws and their rates of homicide, or even gun homicide. Or that the number of guns has increased greatly over the last 20 years while crime and murder have declined. Point out the criminals' likely work-arounds to whatever measure they favor. Don't engage on a "why do you need it" discussion; respond to those questions by pointing out that nobody needs a car that can go faster than 70mph, yet we allow them, or that nobody needs a hamburger or a cookie, yet we can eat them, or a house bigger than 1,000 square feet. The burden is not a person to show "need," it's on the person who would ban an item to show that the ban would be so useful and productive that it's worth the loss of individual rights.

If they're fixated on mass shooters, the Navy Yard shooting from a few months ago is the perfect counter-example. The shooter passed a BGC. He bought a shotgun. It was pump-action. He didn't use any kind of exotic ammo. And he was able to kill many adults with some training on how to respond to emergencies, but who were unable to defend themselves because of a no-gun zone.

Don't expect anyone to change their mind during a discussion. People usually can't do an about-face that quickly. It's possible, however, that they'll do some critical thinking afterward; maybe in a few days/weeks/years they'll have a change of heart.

But if you can't be calm, can't refrain from glib comments about "cold, dead hands," or cops being too heavy to carry or watering trees with the blood of liberty or whatever, then just politely disengage.

Davek1977
January 2, 2014, 05:15 PM
Using words like" libtard mother in law", etc.....I just don't see how any of that is productive in any fashion, known audience or not. I don't know you, but its already colored MY opinion slightly, and we're on the "same side" of things. Imagine what effect it can have on people already hostile to your point of view, or sitting on the fence, undecided. When we make ourselves deliberately hard to like, is it really hard to see why some people refuse to accept our right to bear arms? Arrogance and attitude rarely make people look as "cool" as they think it does, and a good many people on both sides of the debate find it distasteful. I realize you said we must know our audience, but we can NEVER really know the true reach of our words. One person could repeat your choice of phrasing over coffee the next day, and 10 people you never meant to see your display may hear about it. If they were neutral before, do you really think you've persuaded them to join our side of things? Or, is it more likely, they'll see you in a distasteful light?

KUSA
January 2, 2014, 05:24 PM
Dave
The people that are pushing gun control aren't critical thinkers. You can't reason with someone that is unreasonable. You can't use logic on an illogical person. They are driven by absurd beliefs that you won't change.
We keep losing ground because while we are trying to reason with them they are taking action. They don't care what you say. They don't care how you feel. They won't hear your facts.
My answer is Molon Labe.

ATLDave
January 2, 2014, 05:33 PM
KUSA, gun control proponents are not a monolithic group. There are the true hoplophobes who have a functionally-religious view on guns. They do not hold their beliefs about the efficacy or desirability of guns as a conjecture about the empirical world, and their opinions are not subject to a demonstration of the null hypothesis. They are not persuadable.

They are also a small percentage of those people who are somewhat anti-gun or pro gun-control. Most people who are pro-gun control are such because they believe that gun control is an effective tool for reducing crime and death. Given the slant of information that they are presented with, this is the very natural conclusion to draw. I believe it to be factually wrong, but that wrongness is somewhat counter-intuitive, especially if the only time you hear about guns is when they are used for murder.

If you believe that every person who is in favor of gun control cannot be persuaded to a more gun-friendly view, then surely you think that complete gun control is inevitable. If you give up on changing minds, you will lose in the end. Guaranteed 100%.

ChaoSS
January 2, 2014, 05:33 PM
They're already against us. You lose nothing.
People change. Just because they don't change in the one debate you have with them doesn't mean they won't change 5 years down the road, or 20. Just because you can't change them doesn't mean you can't affect how hard it is for someone else later on in life to change them.


The perception of gun owners as blowhard, petulant thugs is one the media would love to push on everyone, and it doesn't take much of this kind of behavior to reinforce the stereotype.

So, on behalf of all of us responsible gun owners, thank you for making our lives that much more difficult.

Davek1977
January 2, 2014, 05:53 PM
KUSA, We have an obvious difference of opinion. Rather than shoving my opinion down people's throats whether they like it or not, I've had success with actual conversation on the topic. Not everyone is so bull-headed that logic is completely lost on them. My wife was raised in an anti-gun home. She had zero realistic experience with guns, be it positive or negative. She simply leaned the way she was raised. However, after talking the issue over with me, and seeing that guns were part of day to day life for some people, she not only reversed her stance, but is now a gun owner herself who sleeps much better with a 9mm in her nightstand. Now, I could have told her she could pound sand if she didnt like guns, but I care about her, and I wasn't going to let the issue ruin a perfectly good relationship. I knew it was simply lack of experience that colored her opinion, and the same goes for many people I've met over the years. Not everyone with anti-gun leanings is part of the Brady Bunch, rabidly wanting to take away your rights. A lot of people, forlack of a better term, simply don't know any better. I could have called my wife a libtard, told her she could get my guns from my cold dead hands, etc etc...but I'd be missing out on ten years of happy marriage, and I'd be down at least one shooting buddy. Not everyone sees things in black and white, or are 100% committed to their position, especially if it isn't based on anything. See what I'm saying?!?!

ATLDave
January 2, 2014, 06:11 PM
People change. Just because they don't change in the one debate you have with them doesn't mean they won't change 5 years down the road, or 20. Just because you can't change them doesn't mean you can't affect how hard it is for someone else later on in life to change them.


The perception of gun owners as blowhard, petulant thugs is one the media would love to push on everyone, and it doesn't take much of this kind of behavior to reinforce the stereotype.

So, on behalf of all of us responsible gun owners, thank you for making our lives that much more difficult.

Exactly. EXACTLY. I have converted folks. Not quickly, but over time. And more than one person. More than a handful. Please don't poison the well for me. If you can't do something constructive - if persuasion isn't your thing - then just politely disengage. Go give money to your gun rights group of choice and vote, but leave the discussion to those who have some track record of success.

KUSA
January 2, 2014, 07:39 PM
Perhaps I misrepresented myself. I don't go around acting like a blowhard. I actually engage in intellectual conversation with the uninformed. However the wretched pro gun control crowd is not interested in facts. You won't persuade them and I get pleasure out of aggravating them. That's all they are worth, a cheap laugh.
As far as complete gun control is concerned it is on the way my friends. You can either go with it or take a stand when the time comes. It's your choice.

ChaoSS
January 2, 2014, 08:44 PM
I'm not saying you do just go around acting like a blowhard. What I'm saying, is that it doesn't take much of that behavior to reinforce the idea that gun owners are just a bunch of blowhards.


Just try to remember that people do in fact change their minds, not everyone on everything, but people do change, and reinforcing negative stereotypes hurts that process.

As far as complete gun control goes, sure, it may come one day, but when that day comes, I'd like to see enough people who are shooters who might put up a stand, rather than just having a few who can't do anything.


I'm sure you've heard the phrase "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance". To me, this doesn't just mean constantly fighting political battles, paying attention to laws that come through. It means being vigilant about our own actions, it means being better people. It means that gun owners need to be better people.

It's not enough to simply not act like a child all the time. It's important for us to be better, all the time, to do our best to avoid the childish things that all of us want to do on a regular basis. It's about always presenting our best faces to the world.

goon
January 2, 2014, 11:15 PM
Dave
The people that are pushing gun control aren't critical thinkers. You can't reason with someone that is unreasonable. You can't use logic on an illogical person. They are driven by absurd beliefs that you won't change.
We keep losing ground because while we are trying to reason with them they are taking action. They don't care what you say. They don't care how you feel. They won't hear your facts.
My answer is Molon Labe.

I'm not Dave, but I agree with both of them.
Maybe you won't sway the most extreme anti gun people.
But we're not aiming to sway them.

Most people aren't "gun people" and even among gun owners, only a small number of us care enough to even engage in this discussion right now on THR. Most others are perfectly happy to leave their guns in the closet until deer season or to keep a Glock in the night stand in case of emergency. We are not a majority.

You can gain some respect from those in the middle, those who may be inclined to listen to reason, if you act reasonable.


I'm also of the opinion that those who aren't able to engage in civil debate shouldn't engage in this debate at all. And sometimes I fall in to that category myself. Sometimes I have to take myself out of the discussion.

hso
January 3, 2014, 07:36 PM
The ILA is the NRA's legislative arm and is who the donations need to go to.

tuj
January 3, 2014, 07:41 PM
Might I suggest that calling people 'libtards' gets us no where.

Its like some of you can't fathom that there might be a liberal who genuinely cares about 2A rights.

Zeke/PA
January 6, 2014, 05:09 AM
You might want to get yourself prepared so you can successfully state your case and make your side of the argument....(notice I did NOT say "defend yourself")
I strongly agree with this statement.
Personally, I try my best to keep up with current stats involving Gun Crime.
My favorites include the Failed Systems way of keeping Career Criminals on the streets. ( It ain't hard living near Philadelphia and Wilmington DE.)
Many bring up "backround checks" and I refer them to Federal Form 4473.
Our best bet is to stay well informed. MOST who wish to debate us REALLY have not enough backround to do so.

ATLDave
January 6, 2014, 10:41 AM
Might I suggest that calling people 'libtards' gets us no where.

Its like some of you can't fathom that there might be a liberal who genuinely cares about 2A rights.

Agreed. If someone has liberal economic views, does that mean that you don't want their support on gun issues if they are so inclined? There are many, many thousands of such people.

Phaedrus/69
January 6, 2014, 11:22 PM
It appears there's a 'civil war' of sorts brewing in the ACLU. There's a split within their ranks with a lot of them wanting the organization to step up and fight for the 2nd Amendment. The default position of liberals as being anti-gun is largely a recent thing and partially a myth. The 'old guard' at the ACLU holds the view that the 2nd protects state's rights, not individual rights. But after Heller that view is obsolete.

If the ACLU reverses course they'd dwarf the NRA in the amount of good they could do!

Phaedrus/69
January 6, 2014, 11:25 PM
BTW, ATLDave has a great point. I myself am somewhat to the left of Stalin!:D I'm probably about the most liberal guy you'll find on THR. But I've also had a CCW permit for 25 years and vote staunchly pro-gun. Assuming all liberals are anti-gun only shows your ignorance. On the issue of basic constitutional rights there shouldn't be liberals or conservatives, only Americans.

goon
January 7, 2014, 12:11 AM
Assuming all liberals are anti-gun only shows your ignorance. On the issue of basic constitutional rights there shouldn't be liberals or conservatives, only Americans.

I think that those who run in very conservative circles have trouble with this concept, but those of us who are more libertarian or liberal or who have friends on both sides of the aisle know it to be true.
Having said that, democrats have embraced gun control as a core part of their party platform in the past. I can't blame anyone who hasn't forgotten that.

Then again, I have found that many who claim to be liberal bear a strong resemblance to fascists in a different uniform. There is a difference between saying you're liberal and actually being liberal.

I can't stand the folks who just drink the kool-aid and believe whatever the talking head tells them to think, but I count some real liberals among my closest friends.

Phaedrus/69
January 7, 2014, 12:32 AM
I want to point out that when I said "your" I wasn't referring to anyone specifically, just anyone that regurgitates "libtard" again and again and thinks they're making a point. THR seems to be one of the most polite and rational places for gun discussion on the web, less blind ideology and clueless assumptions here than is the general norm elsewhere.:)

Really the 'anti-gun liberal' thing is fairly new. Historically the Blue Dog Democrats where staunch supporters of the 2nd and in good stead with the NRA.

I'm basically very liberal when it comes to social issues and generally libertarian with respect to politics. It smacks of fascism to me to try to put the Bible ahead of the Constitution and I don't think any government at any level has the authority to decide who you can marry. Marry a man, woman, chicken or goat...or 10 of each...it's nothing to me. And as Jefferson said whether you worship one god or ten that's nothing to me, either.

One thing is crystal clear to me- if middle aged white men think they'll get their own way forever then this battle is already lost. If the citizens of the US still have the RKBA in 50 years it will because we effectively reached out to women, blacks, hispanics, gays and everyone else with skin in the game. The country is getting browner and more urban, and we can't count on straight middle aged white men dictating all the terms for much longer.

The NRA better start to look less like Wayne LePierre and more like Colion Noir!

goon
January 7, 2014, 01:15 AM
One thing is crystal clear to me- if middle aged white men think they'll get their own way forever then this battle is already lost. If the citizens of the US still have the RKBA in 50 years it will because we effectively reached out to women, blacks, hispanics, gays and everyone else with skin in the game. The country is getting browner and more urban, and we can't count on straight middle aged white men dictating all the terms for much longer.

The NRA better start to look less like Wayne LePierre and more like Colion Noir!

Exactly. I think one of the best things the NRA could start doing right now is making American Rifleman available in Spanish.
Think outside the box people.
If we don't think outside the box they're going to bury us in it.

tuj
January 7, 2014, 02:32 AM
Exactly. I think one of the best things the NRA could start doing right now is making American Rifleman available in Spanish.

This is the smartest NRA-related item I have heard in a LONG time. Like I said before, I personally don't agree to how the NRA-ILA operates, but the poster above is exactly right.

The demographics are changing under your feet.

Davek1977
January 7, 2014, 04:39 AM
While I completely understand that there may be liberals who strongly support the 2nd Amendment, I often wonder who they can possibly find to vote for when election time rolls around. How many truly liberal candidates openly support gun rights? Very few, because it distances themselves from their core constituency. How many "liberals" are "single issue" voters, refusing to vote for anyone who is anti-gun? Again, I'd venture to say, from personal experience anyway, very few. Thus, a liberal who is "anti gun control" very often ends up voting for the candidate most likely to be pro-gun control, thus still doing damage to our cause while claiming otherwise, at least in my opinion and from what I have observed

Phaedrus/69
January 7, 2014, 04:54 AM
Very true, Davek1977. Not a lot of candidates out there I like period, regardless of party. Not all of us liberals are fans of Clinton and personally I'm pretty tired of all the Bushes and Clintons. Of course there's no one in the Republican party that I'd meet with anything beyond gales of laughter. I suppose Christie is the closest one.

I used to like McCain before he got desperate for the White House. It looked like he realized his "window" was closing and he went completely nuts. Used to be that he was his own man, did what he thought was right and didn't care if the party flaks agreed with it or not. The whole Palin debacle pretty much flushed any chance he might have had down the crapper.

The only potential candidate I see out there that I like is Warren, and she probably won't run. I don't know what she thinks of guns...probably not in favor of them but that's just a guess. The banking industry would keep her busy for two full terms though!:D

One thing you do tend to notice is that there aren't many one-issue antis out there. If you threaten to take my guns I'll turn out to fight it, you can bet on that. But the antis have no skin in the game, mostly. They will usually vote on other issues (eg reproductive rights, gay rights, foreign policy).

ATLDave
January 7, 2014, 10:33 AM
There are still numerous pro-gun Democrats. I'm hoping MT governor Brian Schweitzer runs in 2016. http://www.ontheissues.org/governor/Brian_Schweitzer_Gun_Control.htm

KUSA
January 7, 2014, 11:57 AM
While I completely understand that there may be liberals who strongly support the 2nd Amendment, I often wonder who they can possibly find to vote for when election time rolls around. How many truly liberal candidates openly support gun rights? Very few, because it distances themselves from their core constituency. How many "liberals" are "single issue" voters, refusing to vote for anyone who is anti-gun? Again, I'd venture to say, from personal experience anyway, very few. Thus, a liberal who is "anti gun control" very often ends up voting for the candidate most likely to be pro-gun control, thus still doing damage to our cause while claiming otherwise, at least in my opinion and from what I have observed

^^^^^^^^ This ^^^^^^^^
I only know one liberal that is pro gun and he always votes for the gun grabbers.

Jim NE
January 7, 2014, 10:49 PM
I purchased a NRA membership for one of my anti-gun liberal cousins several years ago. It back fired when he purchased a membership for me to the ACLU.....I'll never give another pro gun membership to a liberal again.

You made the right choice.

Question to all my fellow 2nd Amendment advocates: Since when did it become illegal to have anti-gun viewpoints?? Or to express them in public??

Getting someone on a pro-gun mailing list or any political advocacy mailing list that they don't want to be on borders on harassment. Maybe not legally, but certainly in spirit. And it's a spirit I don't want any part of. And you end up making the NRA an unwitting party to your harassment.

I've been irritated when I get unwanted material from political parties/movements I don't want any part of. If I found out that I was getting this material as a mild form of intimidation from people who had singled me out as a political adversary, there would be trouble. Again, it doesn't matter if it's illegal or not. The "it's not illegal, therefore it's OK" mentality doesn't cut it with me.

If someone has to resort to this sort of tactic to win an argument, maybe they should brush up on their debating skills.

Phaedrus/69
January 8, 2014, 03:10 AM
Jim NE makes a good point. In my own case it's pretty rare that I'm 'attacked' for my views. If someone is strongly anti-gun they're probably not going to be a super close friend, simply because it's unlikely that I'll have enough else in common to make up for it. But it can happen. It's like religion in a way- we can have very strong views on one issue without it bleeding over into other areas. If that happens with the issue of guns and I'm still close to that person it's because they respect me enough and are open minded enough to know they won't change my mind. To be honest it's probably going to be a woman I'm dating...a pretty face is about the only reason I'll put up much.:D

But if I'm attacked for whatever reason I'll usually just politely tell them they're welcome to their opinion and ignore them. If they persist or want to debate it they're in for trouble! I'm not mean about it but I've done my homework. If their only reasons are emotional they'll get demolished.

The 'antis' I most respect are the ones honest enough to call for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. I disagree with them but at least they acknowledge the law of the land. At least with that person I respect their integrity.

For younger, open minded folks I have a secret tactic that rarely fails: I offer to take them shooting! That will change some folk's minds. There's a young guy I worked with that was fairly anti-gun until he agreed to go to the range with me. Long story short he was amazed at how much fun it was. Once he realized he liked guns and loved to shoot he started to question the line of bull he'd been fed by his parents and teachers (note- he's a 19 year old black kid, son of 1st gen immigrants, professional types). Now he's a pretty hardcore pro-gun guy!

Not every anti is a true believer. Some have just never had the pro gun case laid out to them in an objective, rational way.

DeadMoneyDrew
January 8, 2014, 10:57 AM
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Liberals-find-comfort-level-in-NPR-of-gun-clubs-5107330.php

There are out there blazingly liberal people who also support gun rights. The San Francisco Chronicle did a good writeup on one such organization a few days ago.

230RN
January 8, 2014, 04:43 PM
My problem is I do not do well in FTF debates, and I know it, so I shut up in that kind of encounter, perhaps offering to take them shooting. But that depends on the person with whom I'm dealing.

Besides, as somebody pointed out, "You can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

There are a number of sources for succinct point-by-point rebuttals to the hogwash antis chant, especially with respect to their phony statistics. The NRA did an article on this a couple of years ago, but I haven't seen one since. I'm sure somebody here can dig up others.

But one of my favorites is from Jeff Cooper, courtesy of the Buckeye State gun site:

"One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure and in some cases I have that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy."

More:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/quotations-of-jeff-cooper

I personally think that it will take nothing short of one good tyranny or one good mugging to change some peoples' minds.

Terry, 230RN

woodnbow
January 9, 2014, 10:19 AM
You took it too seriously. You aren't going to change the mind of the die hard lib so just piss them off.
Well I'm certainly glad your view is the minority...

BTW, is that how you move thru life? Don't agree with another point of view so you just "piss them off"? Really, and how is that working out for you?

My preference is to try to talk them into a little range time. Another poster above suggested a 10-22 and brick of shells. I agree completely, the choice of firearm may vary from time to time and it's good to have an AR in the trunk with a hundred rounds so they can find out how much fun those evil guns can be... You won't be likely to convert an anti gunner in one outing but taking small steps like this is certainly better than needless willful dickery...

ErikO
January 11, 2014, 02:20 AM
^^^^^^^^ This ^^^^^^^^
I only know one liberal that is pro gun and he always votes for the gun grabbers.
"No Confidence" gets many of my votes. The last Liberal I've seen on a ballot was Jon Huntsman and his position on how much interferance folks should endure in their private lives has increased. Most of the RKBA backing Liberals/Lefties I know - myself included - see individual defense as a Ninth Amendment right as court cases have absolved the State from being concerned with an individual's safety. I draw a harder line on firearms than many I know.

When we get the option to vote for anti-Authoritarian candidates, we should do so. When I have to choose between someone who wants to sign an AWB and someone who HAS signed one, 'No Confidence' is the only vote that makes sense unless you have another candidate who won't sign away your rights to make way for Corporate or Government control.

Either explaining that all rights are equally important as well as important to be shared equally amongst everyone who is residing here or taking someone shooting is the best way to show them why firearms rights are important and also how much fun shooting is to do. Ideally, both.

goon
January 11, 2014, 03:47 AM
When I have to choose between someone who wants to sign an AWB and someone who HAS signed one, 'No Confidence' is the only vote that makes sense unless you have another candidate who won't sign away your rights to make way for Corporate or Government control.

Exactly. That was the case in the last election.
I had no good choice, only two bad ones.
It's like choosing which toilet to drown in.

kimbershot
January 11, 2014, 06:20 AM
i always put in real terms, real situations where a gun in the hands of a competent person can make a difference. one close to home story was about an incident that took place less than ten miles from where i lived--a home invasion where the perps used a fake weapon. they beat the husband left him for dead (he escaped), the wife was sodomized and strangled, their two teen daughters were tied to their beds, doused with gas and lite up. the cops were outside as the house burned down.

would all this have happened if someone in the house could have taken an action with a real weapon?:fire:

shafter
January 11, 2014, 08:19 AM
Anyone who will "attack" another verbally or physically over a different point of view is completely beyond convincing. You can present all the facts, polls, statistics, and history lessons that you want and it will get you nowhere. Best to just walk away at that point.

angrymike
January 12, 2014, 10:29 AM
I've read all the comments and agree with most. If the person is a full blown anti, who cares if they think you're a blowhard, they already think way worse anyway, I say piss them off. If their a fence sitter take them shooting, go out of your way to do this, a 10/22 and a couple hundred rounds, that's all it takes. So I say its all about know your crowd. I have done some political stuff and ended up with a Obama sign in my front yard after the election, and yet I still work to change his mind, he's a fence sitter, he just doesn't know it, its about free stuff for him, if the government gave out free guns and ammo, he'd be on our side. Know your audience........

230RN
January 13, 2014, 08:31 AM
^
...he's a fence sitter, he just doesn't know it, its about free stuff for him, if the government gave out free guns and ammo, he'd be on our side. Know your audience........

Hilarious, but sharp around the edges. Bread and circuses and guns and ammo, doncha know?

Sav .250
January 13, 2014, 12:22 PM
There are some who take a stand and can`t be moved...........You think one way they another. It`s a wash! Move on.

phil dirt
January 13, 2014, 01:23 PM
I used to argue with them but seemingly to no avail. Now I tell them <deleted> and then send another contribution to NRA-ILA.

PabloJ
January 17, 2014, 10:54 PM
It is irritating when anti-gun people who have not bothered to verify bad statistics fed to them by anti-gun sources attack me for my pro-2nd Amendment stance! So, assuming the NRA needs to publicise the truth more, when I return home I make a donation to the NRA of $25 to $100, depending on the insolence of the encounter.

Now, here's the trick! I make the donation in the name of the anti-gun person with their address, explaining to the NRA and requesting they send a letter thanking them for the donation!
Realistically the only thing one can do it recruit new members into shooting sports. The liberals do not want to listen to conservatives and conservatives do not want to listen to liberals. There is no constructive criticism or communication with those of opposite point of view and folks hang around and exchange views with those that think like themselves. That is why the country made of 50 little ones is failing.

goon
January 18, 2014, 01:03 AM
Realistically the only thing one can do it recruit new members into shooting sports. The liberals do not want to listen to conservatives and conservatives do not want to listen to liberals. There is no constructive criticism or communication with those of opposite point of view and folks hang around and exchange views with those that think like themselves. That is why the country made of 50 little ones is failing.

I've found a 10/22, a couple spare magazines, and 100 rounds to be very effective at bringing many people in.
You don't want to use too much ammo. A hundred rounds is just about the right amount to switch off with them and maybe let them shoot sixty rounds or so... to get them hooked. Then you're out of ammo all the sudden. If they want to shoot again (and they often do) then they'll have to come with you next Saturday.

A lot of what's expressed as anti-gun views comes from inexperience, both with guns and with gun people.

Wreck-n-Crew
January 22, 2014, 08:22 PM
It took years and a change of email addresses to get off all the kill the babies, save the whales, bunny huggers and send money to help the gay's groups that had connections with the ACLU. I have never understood how people that are "bunny huggers" can be pro abortion but it seems like they all are. Needless to say I never purchased another NRA or other pro gun membership to a liberal again. I understand how it might be a waste of money, better spent on ammo, however being distracted by all of the other things that you don't like about someone is counterproductive. Stay focused on the disagreement at hand.

Even better point out that pro-gun people come from every background and that even his/her party choice have their own website :http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=10853

I think that those who run in very conservative circles have trouble with this concept, but those of us who are more libertarian or liberal or who have friends on both sides of the aisle know it to be true. I disagree. That is a misperception as well. The focus on the issue is pertinent to promote change in real people. Media will spin both ways, don't by the hype.

I only grabbed a few of these examples and I saw others. I did not due so to single out arguments and just as well could have referred to many. My purpose was only in making the point on the political polarizing views and how distractive and destructive they can be.

From where I am standing this is not a place for polarizing opinions of another's political views or ones perception thereof and the like is a stumbling block to progress. Real progress can be made with a stand on 2A by everyone who supports it and the use of political preferences should only be used to say our "political preferences are different but on 2A we are untied". Anything else is useless and counterproductive IMO.

Just because washing is, doesn't mean we have to be. I am still looking for another method myself to promote and extend 2A rights. Joining a few forums and discussions can be and has been informative and enlightening at times. If it we're to descend into the likes of Washington like behavior, I would find it useless and would no longer find it rewarding. Maybe some Anti drops by and sees a united stance and takes a hint. If so I hope it is because these discussions are fruitful. If an anti stops in and reads something else it will only reinforce their belief that 2A is the cause of chaos itself IMO.

This place and this time is as good as any to join for the sake of what we all support

mope540
January 29, 2014, 06:25 AM
If trying in a friendly way to convince the "attackers" that guns are not the problem does nothing for them, they're hopeless. Way too many fools have fallen for the nonstop anti-gun nonsense and cannot be convinced otherwise. If you choose to be nice to the idiots who are not nice to you, so be it. Being nice is not in their game plan. You're better off to try a different approach...tell them they should stick to using their distress whistles. Let them know that their ignorance makes buying ammo and firearms easier for those of us who do choose to protect ourselves and hunt.

Hokkmike
January 29, 2014, 06:52 AM
Here is the cold logic of the debate:

We fumble around with facts, figures, anecdotes, reason, and the Constitutional arguments.

Antis want what they want because they want it.

Their arrogance supersedes any notion of "discussion" or reasonable "debate".

goon
January 29, 2014, 11:07 AM
From where I am standing this is not a place for polarizing opinions of another's political views or ones perception thereof and the like is a stumbling block to progress. Real progress can be made with a stand on 2A by everyone who supports it and the use of political preferences should only be used to say our "political preferences are different but on 2A we are untied". Anything else is useless and counterproductive IMO.

Absolutely. I wish we could get to that point. But you have to admit that there are those people who start in with the "it's all them damn liberals" argument, even though they voted for a guy who'd signed a assault weapons ban in Massachusetts for president. I don't know if it's denial, hypocrisy, or ignorance. But we all need to get past it.

Jim K
January 29, 2014, 04:02 PM
One tactic to use in person is to adopt the "Progressive's" methods.

Practice your liberal sneer, and rehearse phrases like, "Well YOU would think like that; most supporters of dictatorships do."

"It really takes a small minded person to believe such obvious nonsense."

"Surveys show that most of the people who support gun control also support one party rule and government control of the press."

"Sure we can ban guns, but no intelligent person believes a ban would work unless we also destroy all civil liberties and go in for mass searches and summary executions; but of course you would back those also."

"You claim to want "reasonable" gun laws. What exactly do you mean by that? Do you want only the rich and influential to be able to defend themselves?"

"Why do you want those who can't afford private guards to be killed?" Sneer. "But then you elitists think like that, don't you?"

"Sure you can trust the government to control guns. They already control your TV, your newspapers, your phone calls, your money and your transportation. They put spy cameras everywhere, and you say they can be trusted and want more of that?"

Nasty? Sure. But those are the tactics they use against us.

Jim

Stevie-Ray
February 3, 2014, 05:57 PM
"No Confidence" gets many of my votes. The last Liberal I've seen on a ballot was Jon Huntsman and his position on how much interferance folks should endure in their private lives has increased. Most of the RKBA backing Liberals/Lefties I know - myself included - see individual defense as a Ninth Amendment right as court cases have absolved the State from being concerned with an individual's safety. I draw a harder line on firearms than many I know.
Jon "My dog has created more shovel-ready jobs than Obama" Huntsman a liberal?:confused:

kmrcstintn
March 12, 2014, 02:46 PM
I stand quietly, let them spew their crap, and look at them in silence; sometimes they get more vocal looking to elicit a heated response and bypassers see them getting irate while I remain relatively calm; sometimes they walk off satisfied and full of themselves;

I had an ongoing banter at work with a coworker who loved to get quick jabs in here & there...he did elicit a few unwanted responses; meanwhile we became friends on Facebook and I started posting links to YouTube videos from gun owners offering pro firearm information at town hall meetings and several news story recaps of armed robbers foiled by armed good guys fighting back...

there is one in particular that shows home security video of 4 armed perpetrators during a daylight attack, one of them with an AR 15...luckily the homeowner was ready and they fled since he was proactive in his self defense; after posting that video link a few times my coworker dropped the crap and we now talk neutrally on other subjects...

in my quiet time I hit popvox and let my federal representatives know how I feel about gun control; at an upcoming 2A rally I will sign petitons and hopefully talk with a few state representatives; phone calls to follow...

If you enjoyed reading about "What to do when attacked for pro-2nd Amendment views" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!