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

I'm so angry I can't think.

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by The Unknown User, Apr 12, 2008.

  1. The Unknown User

    The Unknown User Well-Known Member

    So, a friend of mine is affiliated with ProtestEasyGuns, and is organizing a protest in her area. She will be taking part in a "lie in" which is supposed to draw support for stronger gun laws to prevent future shootings.

    She was close friends with one of the victims from VT, so it's easy to see why she's so involved. I shared with her previously that I couldn't believe she was supporting more laws to add to those that criminals already break, and she just shyed away.

    Recently, on Facebook, her friend posted a video of the president of PEG speaking, and spreading more of her lies and filth. Of course, I responded, along with numerous other people, including numerous students from VT who completely disagreed with PEG.

    So, I put in my two cents, saying that I didn't agree with PEG, and that I couldn't support PEG's purpose. My friend responded, saying that she was curious what those who disagreed with PEG thought of as the best approach is to ending future violence.

    This is my response:

    "I believe the best approach is to realize that laws are completely irrelevant. It was illegal for Cho to bring a gun to VT, and it was definitely illegal for him to murder his fellow students. The laws didn't stop him, and the police aren't there to protect people, despite what people may believe.

    It is up to individuals to ensure their own personal safety, so I think the best approach is to stop restricting the rights of the law abiding and remove arbitrary limitations on the Second Amendment.

    Jen, in the last year, there have been, what, five shootings? In four of them, the victims were, by law, sanction, rule, or policy, disarmed. They weren't allowed the means with which to defend themselves. A few months back there was a shooting at a church, where a law abiding citizen stopped the shooter with her own gun.

    So called "gun free zones" just create victims. Criminals aren't going to go to places where people carry. There will probably never be a shooting at an NRA meeting.

    Oh, and to clarify: I don't oppose the protest. I support ALL rights, and you have the right to protest. I don't have to like the message the protest is about, however, but whether I like something or not is entirely irrelevant. :)

    Good luck, and I hope everything goes smoothly."

    Her response:

    "I don't need this right now." She then followed this with a comment about me being a "friend." Yes, it was in quotes.


    I don't even know what to do. I just want to bang my head on the wall.
  2. Biker

    Biker Well-Known Member

    Shine it. Don't mean nothin'.

  3. gp911

    gp911 Well-Known Member

    I think you've done all you could in this situation... If she is unwilling to listen to reason and would rather keep her head in the sand with feel-good quasi-solutions that infringe on law-abiding citizens rights then there is little else you can do.

    Good luck with all that. :D

  4. MacEntyre

    MacEntyre Well-Known Member

    You thought you had a friend, but you did not.
  5. The Unknown User

    The Unknown User Well-Known Member

    This is so infuriating. I can understand why she's so driven by her emotions.

  6. Nate C.

    Nate C. Well-Known Member

    You did what you could: respectfully disagreed with her opinion and wished her well in her misguided endeavors. Ball's in her court. I wouldn't waste too much energy worrying about it.

    I would suggest you send her some of Oleg's cool images, but it sounds like it might inflame the matter.
  7. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Ask her which "right" she doesn't need. Is it the right of free speech, protected by the 1A? Is it the right os assembly? Is the is basic human right of self defense? What ever right she doesn't need, she is free not to exercise. The prolem come when she advocates infringing your right, wheter you "need" them at the moment or not.

    It really sounds as if she is simply misguided. She pasionately want to "do something" and has jumped on the first idea that came along, convenienty promoted by the MSM.
  8. buck00

    buck00 Well-Known Member

    Your response was well-written. I would leave it at that and give her some space... let her cool off.

    If she was friends with a VT victim chances are she is directing her anger/frustration/grief at guns... and by you supporting guns and CCW you are upsetting and/or confusing her. She may even be upset because this makes her rethink a knee-jerk position.

    In terms of the long-term discussion with her, present the common ground. You both want the same thing: kids to be safe on college campuses. The major difference is on the methods.

    However, for the short-term, I'd give her some space. Let her rant and rave with her liberal buddies... then let her cool off, and maybe you can have a rational discussion (not an emotional-based discussion) in the future.
  9. Acheron

    Acheron Well-Known Member

    If she was a true friend then your means of self-defence wouldn't have mattered.

    Do not weep at the passing of false friends. Be happy for the real ones that you have.

    All of my friends know that I shoot and they all know that I would carry a gun if I could legally do so on campus. Not one of them cares.
  10. The Unknown User

    The Unknown User Well-Known Member

    Nate, doing my absolute best to be civil and wish her well in her endeavors made her angry. I can only imagine what anything else would do. :p

    Henry, that's a great response. I was thinking about the irony about how she uses her 1A rights to try to infringe on the rights of the 2A.
  11. RNB65

    RNB65 Well-Known Member

    So why are you angry? She's entitled to her opinions. Just because you disagree is no reason to be angry.
  12. The Unknown User

    The Unknown User Well-Known Member

    Buck, I beat you to the punch:

    "I understand you're upset. I'm upset, too, just for slightly different reasons. The worst part about all of this is that you and I both want the same thing, but would take entirely different routes to get there. You and I don't have to see eye to eye about it, but I just want you to know I'm not trying to hurt your feelings."
  13. The Unknown User

    The Unknown User Well-Known Member

    RNB, it's more because I'm frustrated. I mean, she asks me what I think, and then when I don't agree with her, she snaps back at me.

    I'm also entitled to be angry. :D
  14. Byron Quick

    Byron Quick Moderator In Memoriam

    It should not infuriate you. It should make you happy. She has identified herself as someone who is not worthy of being your "friend."

    Now losing a friend should be a sad thing. But you can't lose what you never had.

    I would advise not wasting anymore time or effort with her.

    As far as wanting the same goals but choosing different methods to reach those goals go...there are very few of the stated goals of leftists that I do not share. That doesn't mean I have to associate with leftists.
  15. The Unknown User

    The Unknown User Well-Known Member

    I think I'm more angry because she's chosen the "dark side." She's a nice person, so it sucks to see her choosing the emotional, rhetorical, feel good side, rather than the side that uses fact, logic, and the Constituation.

    I'm sure there will be many more friends I lose in the future. Such is life.
  16. LWGN

    LWGN Well-Known Member

    She may still be looking for someone else (a surrogate parent, in the guise of 'Uncle Sam') to protect her and her friends from having bad things happen instead of acknowledging that as adults they are now responsible for doing the protecting themselves.

    Being a grown up is tough. I don't think I really started thinking and acting like a grown up until after nearly all of my older relatives died. It focuses the mind remarkably to realize that there really is no one else to bail you out if you get in trouble. On some level, many people have the sense that there should be someone there to protect them from the consequences of their own decisions. Your friend may be dealing not only with the grief and loss of her friend from VT, but also with the loss of her own illusion of safety. She may honestly believe that there should be someone out there (the police, legislators, the nebulous "government") who can kiss away the nightmare and make her life all sweetness and light again, like Mommy and Daddy used to when she was little. It is an attractive fantasy. When it is taken away, a lot of people feel betrayed and outraged. I know I did. I got over it.

    Also, if she acknowledges that more students going armed would have saved the lives at VT, she has to acknowledge that the people she trusts to protect her and her friends in fact put rules in place that led directly to the death of her friend.

    Your argument shakes the foundation of her world in a big way, and probably makes her feel both more alone and vulnerable than she already felt, and, given the work she has been doing to get guns restricted, may even make her feel somewhat responsible for her friend's death, and that never feels comfortable.

    Give her some space, and she might calm down. Even if none of the things I'm speculating about reflect her state of mind, grief can make people act in ways that seem crazy to someone who hasn't experienced that kind of wrenching, disorienting loss. Don't take it personally.
  17. Ash

    Ash Well-Known Member

    Well, I had two friends killed by drunk driving on two different occaisions. Yet I am not for Prohibition II.

  18. The Unknown User

    The Unknown User Well-Known Member

    LWGN, thank you. I hadn't thought of a lot of that.

    Ash, I'm really sorry to hear that, but you do make a good point.
  19. armed85

    armed85 Well-Known Member

    Most of the people I've met that believe in these sort of laws of banning firearms, operate on emotion rather than reason.

    Our laws are based on what a reasonable person would do. We have been a nation for long enough that we have all the criminal laws we need. It's already illegal to murder, rape, steal, etc.

    Liberals, leftists, California natives, whatever you want to call them, want our government to "do something." So our politicians create more redundant laws and after the next shooting we hear "the gunman used an illegal gun to murder innocent people" instead of just hearing "the gunman murdered innocent people." The end result is the same, an unreasonable person, murdering innocent people, and breaking a law that's been in place for hundreds of years.

    You wrote a reasonable argument. Your friend responded that she "doesn't need this." That's rather telling. She is obviously operating on emotion rather than use reason.

    Find a new friend and continue to point out the error of her emotional argument when she speaks in a pubic forum.
  20. "In terms of the long-term discussion with her, present the common ground. You both want the same thing: kids to be safe on college campuses. The major difference is on the methods.

    However, for the short-term, I'd give her some space. Let her rant and rave with her liberal buddies... then let her cool off, and maybe you can have a rational discussion (not an emotional-based discussion) in the future."

    I agree with Buck00. Lots of people hold very well-meaning liberal views when they're younger and learn more about the way the world works as they grow older. Instead of writing her off as a friend, be more of a friend and let your actions convince her over time rather than words.

Share This Page