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

I've been debating with a few anti gun people lately

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by lionking, Jan 18, 2013.

  1. SoCalNoMore

    SoCalNoMore Well-Known Member

  2. gossamer

    gossamer Well-Known Member

    Both sides are guilty of same. I've read some of the same kinds of rhetorical "Tactics" coming from Pro (The NRA) and Con (The Brady Cult) 2A folks. It's part of the landscape, unfortunately.

    I respectfully suggest that what "The Founders" thought about guns largely ends up being a "push." The founders denied gun ownership to slaves, free blacks, and law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution. They also required the purchase of guns. 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man purchase a gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and registered on public rolls.

    Founders' intent cuts both ways.
  3. morcey2

    morcey2 Well-Known Member

    Fixed it for ya.
  4. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Well-Known Member

    That thread you locked last night had a slew of them.

    Both of those implied some doom and gloom scenario of gun confiscations stemming from background checks yet when called on it, never offered any evidence to back it up. The ONLY attempt at it came from a third person who posted a picture of various dictators, none of whom were Americans. The attempt was half-hearted and blatantly faulty in that none of these countries enjoyed the legal protections of firearm ownership that Americans do. Most of them do not have a constitution in place or were the subjects of military coups.

    I even cited current registration schemes that have not lead to confiscation.

    When crime statistics were brought up, the example of Los Angeles came forward. I quickly destroyed that by pointing out Houston has a larger violent crime problem than Los Angeles. This should not be the case if guns in the hands of citizens really do prevent crime.

    The trouble here is that the same premise gets used over and over. The premise is that if one law is failing to prevent crime, why should another law succeed. While on its face, this seems valid, all it serves to accomplish is...nothing. It isn't an actual argument. They haven't countered the opposition.

    The biggest problem here is that such arguments, when applied to a national stage, offer no solution to gun violence. More comprehensive screenings of gun buyers might yield a few more guns kept out of the hands of criminals. More importantly, it is a seemingly meaningful concession that may be of little actual use but it puts the ball back in the hands of the pro-gun groups. Now we can use our concession to begin something truly useful like the legalization and regulation of drug sales. The strengthening of social programs to actually fight poverty.

    While not popular topics in conservative circles, they have a much larger impact on criminal behavior which we all know to be the real problem. Guns simply make it easier to kill the member of an opposing gang. You can take the guns away from them but you still leave the gang bangers. Start by removing the things they fight over and they won't fight over them. Begin to improve their social and economic standing and you'll find the gangs aren't as attractive.

    but I had to constantly go back and beat down the same tired arguments so the thread degenerated into clusterf***.
  5. Fleetwood_Captain

    Fleetwood_Captain Well-Known Member

    Although the founding fathers wouldn't have been able to take modern weapons completely into consideration, they surely would not have been oblivious to the notion of advances like repeating firearms.

    Although black powder firearms of their time were somewhat primitive by today's standards, Air Guns were different. Air guns in the 1700's shot bullets at comparable velocities to black powder and were quite advanced for their day.

    The first repeating rifle was an Air Rifle, The Girandoni. The Girandoni had a 21 round magazine, with an interchangeable air reservoir that was said to be good for 30 shots. It had been in use by the Austrian military for 8 years by the time the US Constitution was ratified.

    Compared to other rifles, the Girandoni was the "assault weapon" of it's day. Yet I don't recall any of the founding fathers calling the government to ban this item.
  6. JERRY

    JERRY Well-Known Member

    if somebody voted for obama its because theyre politically ignorant or truly believe in karl marx thinking......this does not include those on welfare.
  7. SoCalNoMore

    SoCalNoMore Well-Known Member

    Then you just ruled out most of his voters
  8. phillipduran

    phillipduran Active Member

    In response to someone who would say the founders could not have envisioned how firearms would evolve, I would say it doesn't matter because the purpose is for us to defend ourselves against a military or police force that could be used against us. As our military and polices forces get more powerful individual weapons so should the weapons of the people to maintain the balance of power between standing armies and police forces.

    This kills the chances of the military or police being told to round us up or take control of us. Modern day weapons in the hands of individuals helps to secure our freedom without even firing a shot.
  9. mrvco

    mrvco Well-Known Member

    I'd say that the net is that "the genie is long out of the bottle" as it were, and (while obvious) any sort of prohibition, e.g. alcohol, drugs, guns or whatever, takes the offending item out of law abiding hands and creates an illicit market for it, while leaving it in the hands of criminals, regardless of whether the person possessing it was a criminal before the ban or not.

    The unique aspect of "personal weapons", whether they be guns, swords, knives or whatever, unlike other items that the government may try to prohibit, they are commonly and regularly used defensively by law abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families and their property, both actively and as a deterrent.

    Arguing over 30-round vs. 10-round vs. 7-round magazines or "this gun" vs. "that gun" just ends up being a deteriorating and defeatist argument. Why? Because once you ban 30-round mags, you've set a precedent that when someone commits a crime with a 10-round mag, the logical solution is to ban 10-round mags and so on and so forth... the fact remains, any effective weapon is "dangerous", that's the entire point, and it is the person behind that weapon that determines why and whether it is wielded for good or otherwise.

    One also has to remember that you are typically "debating" with people that have embraced victimhood and whose idea of home and self defense is (with any luck) frantically dialing 911 and capitulating until law enforcement arrives to save the day... any 30-rounds vs 10-rounds or AR vs. 6-shot revolver argument is completely lost on such a person.
  10. Tcruse

    Tcruse Well-Known Member

    There are as many opinions on this stuff as there are people. Everyone has some "element" of truth in their opinion but there are no silver bullets. I personally have no problem with background checks as long as it does not lead to registratration of all firearms and that guns can be given or willed to family members. The other danger of backround checks on all transfers is that using "medical information" or "prescription information" will prevent people that need treatment to not get it and it removes a persons rights without due process. If we are forced to accept universal backround checks we need to add a lot of more protections against mis-use of information and better methods of appeal and restoration of rights.
    My preference would be for all of these "proposed" changes to just die without getting up for a vote in congress.
  11. Guy B. Meredith

    Guy B. Meredith Well-Known Member

    Frankly, I don't even like the 2A argument as we shouldn't even need it. Individual freedoms practiced responsibly need to be accommodated period. No justification is needed where no harm is done.

    The hard core antis are outright bigots and refuse to see the world any other way than through their stereotypes and prejudices. Big one right now is "Gun ownership and safety for children are incompatible"--you are a child killer. Ownership=violence in their minds. No attempt at connecting real world dots.

    There was a news report about 1994 that a group of moms were going to do a door to door in favor of firearms ban. Then they decided against it as they might come to the home of a firearms owner and get shot. Victims of their own gullibility.
  12. RustyHammer

    RustyHammer Well-Known Member

  13. KTXdm9

    KTXdm9 Well-Known Member

    Ah yes, appeasement and socialism. Clearly they both have a track record of raging success in Europe.
  14. Deanimator

    Deanimator Well-Known Member

    You can't convert a hardcore anti any more than you can convert a hard core Holocaust denier. They're too invested in their own psychopathologies, either for ideological or financial reasons.

    You can convert observers:
    1. Refute EVERYTHING the antis say. Don't let them define the terminology or the terms of debate. Correct them EVERY time they misuse words.
    2. Expose EVERY lie they tell. Throw their own words back in their faces at EVERY opportunity.
    3. Expose their motivations. Lots of them are racists, misogynists and the like. Rub their noses in it EVERY chance you get.
    I've been fighting them on and offline for a VERY long time. Their greatest weakness, apart from their colossal ignorance, is their colossal arrogance. They're often totally bewildered by direct confrontation and refusal to play their game. You're just supposed to roll over for them. When you don't, it often destroys their morale.

    No matter what, NEVER give up.
  15. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Well-Known Member

    Nobody is talking about appeasement and I don't think you want to get into the socialism argument here. Plenty of countries in Europe with standards of living meeting or exceeding our own. "Socialism" on this board rarely seems to match the definition most other places know it by. Indeed, here it simply seems to mean "any government spending I don't agree with."
  16. splattergun

    splattergun Well-Known Member

    Originally Posted by akv3g4n
    "I never understand the argument that the founders couldn't have known what future weapons would be developed so the 2nd amendment is no longer applicable to many modern firearms. Many of our founding fathers were inventors, entrepreneurs and innovators in their time. I'm pretty sure that people of their intelligence and determination were keenly aware of what the future of weapons development could bring.

    I'm sure the thought of the government having those weapons and nobody else made them feel all warm and fuzzy inside."

    The Founding Fathers were intelligent, wise men. One need only read a few of the their letters arguing for and against adoption of the BOR to understand that they believed without a doubt that progress would lead to increasingly dangerous weapons.

    They, as a group with individual exceptions, also understood that opening the door to liberty also meant opening the door to a certain element of evil. THey believed, as a group, that the guarantee of personal liberty was paramount to security. They KNEW that with the freedom of speech would come those who would speak evil against them. They KNEW with the freedom of arms would come those who would use those weapons to murder. They KNEW that a future government would try to take those Birthrights away from us, promising security. That is why Thomas Jefferson foresaw a Republic whose liberty was maintained with the judicious use of armed rebellion against a well armed army. THAT is the primary purpose of the 2A, and why modern weapons in the hands of citizens are still necessary.
  17. Solo

    Solo Well-Known Member

    Could you provide some specific letters or quotes for future reference? I imagine this would be very useful when debating the intent of the Founding Fathers.
  18. KTXdm9

    KTXdm9 Well-Known Member

    Appeasement is exactly what is being discussed. We don't need to "offer" anything to anti-gunners. If we did, what do you suggest we would get in return?

    You are right, socialism is a hot button topic. I guess you and I will have to differ on our views regarding European standards of living and the value of "strengthening social programs to fight poverty."
  19. 2nd 41

    2nd 41 Well-Known Member

    Same here. However they will always point their finger at the NRA. I tell them the NRA members go to movies, malls and have kids in school. The NRA is your fellow neighbor, friend, lawyer, doctor, teacher...whatever. Also ask the people that know me personally "would you feel safer if I tossed my HC mags out"
    Also ask them how they would respond if they or a family member has their life threatened. Would they consider a firearm for self protection.
  20. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Well-Known Member

    What you get really depends on what you ask for. Giving away the universal background check would, in the opinion of many here, do absolutely nothing. Criminals will still get guns just as they always have. The checks might stop a few more but the serious ones will still get their guns.
    However, you might find that because you are willing to acquiesce to the background checks, you could ask for the removal of certain drugs from controlled substance lists thus allowing states to make their own calls on what is OK and what is not. Drugs are a huge driving force behind gang violence in this country. Take steps towards fixing that problem and guess what. You might find gun violence starts to drop off a bit.

Share This Page