mr.72 said:
If you begin by thinking that they are irrational, hard-headed, overly emotional, or possess some other kind of rational flaw then you are guaranteed to lose the debate.
This is quite clearly correct.
And you often miss their main points. The reality is that you probably want an AR 15 for the same reason he doesn't want folks to have an AR 15. You want an AR 15 precisely because it doesn't look like a hunting rifle - it looks like a military assault rifle. In fact, it's pretty hard to come up with a hunting scenario where an wood stocked semi-auto like a Ruger Mini-14 is not as effective as an AR 15.
You know and I know that an AR 15 is not an M16, and that no modern army in the world would equip its soldiers with a semi-automatic weapon as an "assault" rifle. You know and I know that the AR 15 is roughly the equivalent of a Mini-14, but that cuts both ways. For you and me, it means that it's silly to ban an AR 15 and not a Mini-14. But from a hunter's point of view, if they are equivalent, why do you need the AR 15?
I suspect that arguing with your mother's husband is difficult because he's largely correct. I think his first premise is incorrect, or more correctly that there is a hidden premise.
mr.72 said:
As for defense against tyranny and militia, well suffice to say only a small fringe of Americans believe in the citizens' responsibility to defend themselves against tyranny or possibly be called up in a militia.
That is also correct. Most people in the US, believe in change through the ballot box. My own suspicion is that the founding fathers may have invented a revolution proof form of government - more so due to universal suffrage. That may be incorrect, but I doubt that 1% of 1% of Americans support the idea of armed revolution against the U.S. government. As long as they can vote - even if you think that voting is a sham - then there is no need for arms. That was not true in the 18th century; Americans did not elect and could not change the government.
I consider that invention a stroke of genius by the founding fathers. The democratic republic offers both stability and a vehicle for change. A true direct democracy descends into chaos pretty directly. A republic that is not a democracy eventually can only be changed by violent revolution. The melding of the two was brilliant. When I read early American history, I wonder how what was essentially a drunken in Boston and group of slaveholders spouting rhetoric about liberty while beating black men to death in Virginia got it right.
If you interviewed 100 people on the street, I doubt 20 could recall Randy Weaver's name, and I bet at least 19 of those that could would remember him as a white supremacist militia nut who was killed in a battle with the FBI. My guess is that a few more folks would remember David Koresh - and maybe two out of a hundred would think something was hinky about that.
When you start ranting about armed insurrection, government tyranny, and the unorganized militia, there is one person 95% of Americans associate with that rant - Tim McVeigh.
Allying yourself with McVeigh is not a strong point.
Mike
