1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by CmdrSlander, Mar 21, 2013.

  1. CmdrSlander

    CmdrSlander Well-Known Member

    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.
  2. 1KPerDay

    1KPerDay Well-Known Member

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

    CmdrSlander Well-Known Member

    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.
  4. OilyPablo

    OilyPablo Well-Known Member

  5. ATBackPackin

    ATBackPackin Well-Known Member

    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.
  6. CmdrSlander

    CmdrSlander Well-Known Member

  7. SabbathWolf

    SabbathWolf member

    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.
  8. Godsgunman

    Godsgunman Well-Known Member

    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.
  9. ATBackPackin

    ATBackPackin Well-Known Member

    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.
  10. OilyPablo

    OilyPablo Well-Known Member

    I mean what would we call a person who just dismissed the 1st Amendment as irrelevant?
    True enough today. Most would call such a person a proponent of dictatorship or worse.
  11. ExTank

    ExTank Well-Known Member

    Molon Labe.

    Bring it.
  12. SabbathWolf

    SabbathWolf member

    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
  13. Solo

    Solo Well-Known Member

    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.

    Criminals are the enemies of us all.

    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.

    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 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...
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2013
  14. dogrunner

    dogrunner Well-Known Member

    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!
  15. dmancornell

    dmancornell Well-Known Member

    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.
  16. 12gaugeTim

    12gaugeTim Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. mgmorden

    mgmorden Well-Known Member

    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.
  18. USAF_Vet

    USAF_Vet Well-Known Member

    Buy her a one way ticket to England. She will be very happy there.
  19. RustHunter87

    RustHunter87 Well-Known Member

    does she know what she proposes will effectively destroy America:fire:
  20. X-JaVeN-X

    X-JaVeN-X Well-Known Member

    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.

Share This Page