I made a little progress with a "progressive"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Flechette

Flechette

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
481
During a conversation about bump stocks (and my vehement opposition to banning them) I got to get a progressive to stop and think about the issue.

I simply (politely) posed the question, "Why don't you go another country?" to which the progressive angrily retorted, "Why don't you?"

I said that there are literally dozens of countries that offer what he wants (gun control, posh unemployment benefits, "hate speech" laws, socialized medicine, etc).

There is only one country that offers me the ability to exercise the rights *I* hold dear. People like me are backed into a corner and will fight like a cornered animal. He has options, we don't.

His anger faded and he eventually said that he had never looked at it that way.

Did I put a crack in his ideological wall? Who knows.
 
Why must gun rights be "bundled" with a host of other social and economic issues? I think we would make better progress if gun rights stood on their own, and we could appeal to people who liked guns, but were all across the ideological spectrum. A good way to alienate a pro-gun (but liberal) person is to call him a "liberal." To some extent, I think the antigun stance of the Democratic party is a reaction to the pro-gun stance of the Republican party. In other words, if you say "A" I have to say "B". In the old days (up to the 1960's, say) neither party had a fixed position on guns. The NRA supported (or opposed) candidates of both parties. Today, it would have more clout if it was not seen as an arm of the Republican party. Alas, the situation today shows the polarized "tribalism" that is so prevalent. People just follow their political "tribe" instead of thinking for themselves.
 
AlexanderA said:
Why must gun rights be "bundled" with a host of other social and economic issues? I think we would make better progress if gun rights stood on their own, and we could appeal to people who liked guns, but were all across the ideological spectrum. A good way to alienate a pro-gun (but liberal) person is to call him a "liberal." To some extent, I think the antigun stance of the Democratic party is a reaction to the pro-gun stance of the Republican party. In other words, if you say "A" I have to say "B". In the old days (up to the 1960's, say) neither party had a fixed position on guns. The NRA supported (or opposed) candidates of both parties. Today, it would have more clout if it was not seen as an arm of the Republican party. Alas, the situation today shows the polarized "tribalism" that is so prevalent. People just follow their political "tribe" instead of thinking for themselves.
Click to expand...

I’m fairly liberal on social issues and fiscally conservative. But I’m very conservative on Constitutional issues especially the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Unfortunately the Liberitarians are a bunch of loons who run horrible candidates. And the Dems are hell bent on eliminating our rights and spending like crazy. So by comparison the GOP doesn’t look so bad.

Now I’m not fond of the GOP and wish we could form some more parties. More would make it harder for the big money to buy both candidates.
 
And here I was thinking you'd got a Dillon press up and running . . .

I'm glad the conversation remained open enough to listen to each others points and reply. You made a good point - this country was founded on having freedoms. If someone doesn't like them - move to where they aren't tolerated.

Paris? Damascus? Good luck with that.
 
Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. But good on you for being able to have a civil exchange. Typically when it gets to the "love it or leave it" stage, political debate has jumped the rails.
 
AlexanderA said:
To some extent, I think the antigun stance of the Democratic party is a reaction to the pro-gun stance of the Republican party. In other words, if you say "A" I have to say "B".
Click to expand...

Other way around. It began with the '68 GCA, introduced by Democrats and signed into law by a Democrat. Granted, it had overwhelming support, but the point remains. Since then, their assault has been relentless, with opposition to Volkmer-McClure, passage of the AWB portion of VCCLE, and multiple legislative attempts combined with numerous executive attacks on 2A at the federal level since. At state and local levels, virtually all infringements have been sponsored, supported, enacted and signed into law by Democrats.

In the words of a petulant child, they started it.
 
At state and local levels, virtually all infringements have been sponsored, supported, enacted and signed into law by Democrats.
Click to expand...

Not to discount what you said but is was Reagan, beloved by so many, that promoted and signed the peice of legislation that really got the avalanche going in CA.
 
danez71 said:
Not to discount what you said but is was Reagan, beloved by so many, that promoted and signed the peice of legislation that really got the avalanche going in CA.
Click to expand...

While we know it did nothing to curb violence, just like all gun control, in the wake of the Watts riots and other contemporary events and social/political climate, one can understand why he signed the Mulford act. It was a very different time.
 
MachIVshooter said:
While we know it did nothing to curb violence, just like all gun control, in the wake of the Watts riots and other contemporary events and social/political climate, one can understand why he signed the Mulford act. It was a very different time.
Click to expand...


True but with out a sunset or similar clause, it was a permanent fix to a temporary problem.... a knee jerk reaction that has become common place.
 
danez71 said:
True but with out a sunset or similar clause, it was a permanent fix to a temporary problem.... a knee jerk reaction that has become common place.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was, just as GCA the following year. Civil rights movement, Vietnam war & anti-war protests, black panthers, high violent crime rate (far higher than what it is today). It was a very turbulent period, and people weren't thinking clearly. Couple that with greater faith in government at the time, and the fact that we had little metric for the (in)effectiveness of gun control, these measures sailed through. In the following two decades, America saw violent crime continue to increase dramatically, reaching all time highs in 1980s and staying there for years. Then they tried again with the 1994 ban, and proponents tried to link it to a VCR drop in the late 1990s, but that fell apart after the DOJ studies and the continued decline after the sunset.

As a whole, we're much more enlightened today. But we are still victims of our own emotions, and there are enough people who either can't be objective or have much more nefarious reasons for wanting gun control that we must remain ever vigilant. At least today, after so many failed measures, we have the facts on our side for dissuading the former.
 
OP:
I have a hard time believing that there is a "polite way" to ask someone "why don't you go to another country ? "
I doubt that that's a good way to change someone's mind.
 
Now that the GCA '68 has been mentioned, I must say that I don't believe that it would pass if it were introduced today. We have become much more polarized in the intervening years, and the pro-gun side has become much more unyielding. There was some cooperation from the gun community in the drafting of the GCA. For example, "Red" Jackson, a well-known antique gun dealer from Dallas, Texas, was responsible for suggesting the 1898 cutoff date for the definition of antique arms. If the GCA were under consideration today, and "Red" Jackson were alive, he would not have made this input without being pilloried and ostracized by his fellow gun people. (Compare what happened to Jim Zumbo.)
 
"I never looked at it that way".

Probably not a decisive victory on your part, but getting someone to say that in a conversation can't be a total defeat.
 
Contrary to popular belief, people on the other side of a debate or political views often aren't idiotic, fanatic sheep/'liberals'/epithet of the week.
They're as intelligent, dedicated, and thoughtful as our side. They just have different personal values, priorities, experiences, and limits to each of them than you, I, or anyone else.
The biggest step in any debate and resolution is just to get the opponent to try to see things from the other's point of view; even if it doesn't change their stance, it helps everyone involved to understand why they have a particular stance.
In this case, the one you were talking to just had the wisdom to actually try it.
 
Deus Machina said:
Contrary to popular belief, people on the other side of a debate or political views often aren't idiotic, fanatic sheep/'liberals'/epithet of the week.
They're as intelligent, dedicated, and thoughtful as our side. They just have different personal values, priorities, experiences, and limits to each of them than you, I, or anyone else.
The biggest step in any debate and resolution is just to get the opponent to try to see things from the other's point of view; even if it doesn't change their stance, it helps everyone involved to understand why they have a particular stance.
In this case, the one you were talking to just had the wisdom to actually try it.
Click to expand...


Some people on the "other side" may be smart, but I've seen a remarkable mount of stupid ideas come out of their camp over the decades. Yeah, our side does stupid too, but IMHO, not as much.
What disturbs me more than the stupid is the cosmic dogmatism of the stupid.

One more comment; recently, among some libs on the social media, a meme has popped up that the N.R. A. should be classified as a terrorist organization. This may not be a wide spread sentiment, but I still find it very alarming that there are some people in America that think like this.
 
Last edited:
George Washington said: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government".

That's my argument against gun control!
 
Personally, I don't know if you made a dent...sorry.

The 2A is a litmus test of sorts. If someone fails to support the 2A, there are usually a host of other issues that will veer them very quickly into a Statist Ideology, whether they realize it or not, most don't. After many years of researching this and the psychology behind belief, I also reject the notion that the "other side" is just as intelligent and thoughtful as we are. The "other side" tends to be woefully uninformed and exhibit symptoms akin to narcissism or brain damage. There are, however, folks who are just ill informed, and for those folks, it's definitely worth a shot to help them see things a different way.

Glad you are fighting along side us...
 
I find the ACLU more dangerous for it's never ending quest of supporting and freeing criminals, writing insane laws, and constant anti-common sense lawsuits than the NRA... or quite frankly, than even ISIS.
 
The key to making progress with "progressives" (on the gun issue) is to split the gun issue from the rest of their ideology. Conversely, the way to alienate them completely is to present gun rights as an indivisible part of a monolithic conservatism. I'll say it before and I'll say it again: gun rights supporters do not divide neatly along a right-left axis. This is where the NRA is making a serious mistake in being seen as a mere arm of the Republican Party.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
I'm drunk, but i made progress
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
LiquidTension
L
G
  • Locked
I had a little run in with a school bus driver
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Robert
Robert
J
  • Locked
Typical media reaction to DGU
2 3
Replies
68
Views
3K
jsalcedo
J
S
  • Locked
"Bowling for Columbine"...topic on Oprah
Replies
1
Views
585
blades67
B
M
  • Locked
Ever Get The Feeling Antis Want a Global Ban
Replies
22
Views
1K
bigalexe
B
Back
Top