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

Interesting Conversation with an ANTI

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by HKGuns, May 2, 2013.

  1. HKGuns

    HKGuns Well-Known Member

    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.

    Further to her disagreement with Heller and her claim of ambiguity in the 2nd Amendment.
    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.
  2. tyeo098

    tyeo098 Well-Known Member

    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.
  3. bolthead

    bolthead Member

    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.
  4. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Well-Known Member

    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.
  5. brickeyee

    brickeyee Well-Known Member

    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.
  6. NorthBorder

    NorthBorder Well-Known Member

    Maybe you should applaud her for being such an articulate, though misinformed, little girl.
  7. BaltimoreBoy

    BaltimoreBoy Well-Known Member

    "...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.
  8. 340PD

    340PD Well-Known Member

    "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?"
  9. Thursday45

    Thursday45 Well-Known Member

    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:
  10. DanTheFarmer

    DanTheFarmer Well-Known Member

    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.

  11. ShooterMcGavin

    ShooterMcGavin Well-Known Member

    Absolutely!! I agree!
  12. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Well-Known Member

    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.
  13. BrooksD

    BrooksD Member

    "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
  14. 627PCFan

    627PCFan Well-Known Member

    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.
  15. medalguy

    medalguy Well-Known Member

    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.
  16. Sambo82

    Sambo82 Well-Known Member

    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:
  17. TCB in TN

    TCB in TN Well-Known Member

    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.
  18. ShooterMcGavin

    ShooterMcGavin Well-Known Member


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

    brickeyee Well-Known Member

    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?
  20. daehawc

    daehawc Well-Known Member

    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.

Share This Page