An anti 2A read me the riot act a few days ago

[hopelessjoe]

The short of the long is this,

I will try to paraphrase...

''If the government, who is supposed to insure our security, because that is what we pay them for, would do their jobs and forcefully take all the guns from everyone, then we would all be that much safer and we wouldn't have to worry about some nut shooting a bunch of people!''

I had some basic answers, but I was at a total loss considering that she was right (in her mind) regardless of my answers.

Is there anything I could have said that would stopped her in her tracks.

I told her that SCOTUS declared that we have no ''right'' to individual protection.

I told her that the 4A protects the innocent from ''evil'' searches and siezures.

I said that the 2A isn't about the ability to go and kill without justification and was actually aimed at preventing government tyranny (which she seems to favor).

Is there anything that I can add to my arguements that will at least make her rethink her fascist ideas about what it takes to make our country a safer place for all of us, especially those who think gun owners are evil and deserve to have our doors kicked in at risk of death to ourselves and families?

 

[Nobody's_Hero]

Know the names of those court cases in which the SCoTUS has declared the state has no obligation to protect its citizens. She likely thought you were making that up, and in her world, everyone gets a personal cop that fits into your trunk like a can of fix-a-flat. If she doesn't listen to what the courts have determined, she's likely dim-witted and closed-minded. But obviously, the idea is not to convince the die-hards, we just have to win the hearts and minds of the fence-sitters.

 

[Big45]

Ask her what happened when the Gov't experimented with taking away all the alcohol.

 

[jeep-2]

An anti 2A read me the riot act a few days ago

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The short of the long is this,

I will try to paraphrase...

''If the government, who is supposed to insure our security, because that is what we pay them for, would do their jobs and forcefully take all the guns from everyone, then we would all be that much safer and we wouldn't have to worry about some nut shooting a bunch of people!''


Yeah right, Tim McVeigh--Oklahoma city and the first World Trade Center Bombing showed us what a danger guns are.
I hope the gov. makes Ice and Snow illegal soon, there were many people killed because of it in the past few weeks.
About 1.7 million Americans a year develop infections while hospitalized and almost 100,000 of them die, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
maybe they can make infections illegal also.
I didn't know we paid the government to insure our security.

that person belongs in government with the rest of the idiots.

 

[Mojo-jo-jo]

Don't even bother. I stopped bothering to argue with rabid hoplophobes several years ago. People this moronic won't be swayed by logic.

 

[armoredman]

My siggie answers that pretty well.

 

[mike101]

Show her this. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

These stats are all from the FBI. Crime in the US has risen 313% (per 100,000 inhabitants) from 1960 to 2006. That's what 40 years of gun control have done for her.

As far as the gubment forcibly taking away everyone's guns, well didn't the Germans do that right before the Nazis took over? In this country, we have something called the MILITIA, which is designed to prevent something like that from happening here. (see my signature)

 

[PennsyPlinker]

''If the government, who is supposed to insure our security, because that is what we pay them for, would do their jobs..."

This is the crux of the matter right here.

First of all, the government is not supposed to insure our safety, at least on a personal basis. They are supposed to, by the guidelines in the Constitution, protect the borders. What happens inside is a different matter, especially on an individual basis.

Second, I doubt she could point to any instance of where the government actually does a good job of anything. Without bashing the government at all, it is simple enough to point out the inefficiency of bureaucracy.

Third, it will do no good to point this out to her, because she is already fully engaged in utopian thinking. She knows how it ought to be, at least as far as she is concerned, and so it has to be that way and only that way, and nothing anyone says is going to change that. Only experience will change that for her.

 

[longtooth]

Even if Big Bro. started the gun confiiscation from the BGs & moved to the GGs it would never work. Before the BGs guns were all confiscated illegal garage machine shops would pop up as fast as crack houses or meth labs.

They would make new ones if they could not buy new ones.

Never work.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

If, (can't/won't happen) all the guns could disappear. Then it would just move to ball bats and matchettes. The guys in Rowanda didn't use guns, however, they knew the others didn't have guns which made it easy.

The weak and elderly would be totally screwed if the bad guys knew there were no firearms out there. 6 big, fit guys could walk into every house on the street and take/rape as they liked. What would stop them?

However, as has already been said. Arguing with a person like this is futile. They really think we're wrong, England (and D.C.) with no guns is utopia, and the press is right. It's not worth your breathe unless you're really bored.

 

[gc70]

by Mike101:
Show her this. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

The linked page does not look totally credible. It starts with:

The United States Crime Index Rates Per 100,000 Inhabitants went from 1,887.2 in 1960 to 5,897.8 in 1991.

Unfortunately, the link is not to an information source, but to an ad for a book about mass murders for sale on Amazon.com. I also could not find a definition for the "crime index" used on the webpage.

 

[Docgmt]

Don't ague with an unarmed liberal

Get Ann Coulter's book How to talk to a Liberal if you must.:banghead: Logic has nothing to do with how these people think, it is all about feeling that they are doing what is "right".

 

[WayneConrad]

Rwanda.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I will try to paraphrase...

''If the government, who is supposed to insure our security, because that is what we pay them for, would do their jobs and forcefully take all the guns from everyone, then we would all be that much safer and we wouldn't have to worry about some nut shooting a bunch of people!''

I had some basic answers, but I was at a total loss considering that she was right (in her mind) regardless of my answers.

We pay the government to defend the Constitution, not to defend "us." Show her the oath of office for any Federal official. Forcefully taking all guns from everyone would be a direct violation of the Constitution, and thus a violation of their oath of office.

The real answer is that the person who made the statement is an idiot who doesn't have any idea what the Constitution is all about or what it says. She wants to believe that it says what she wants to believe it says. However, that argument isn't likely to persuade her.

 

[Sistema1927]

Don't bother. Some folks are wired all wrong.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Well first of all (in my opinion) you need to determine what sort of anti you are talking to before you can decide how to deal with them.

Type #1 - The Aggressors - Those with an active agenda of disarmament. Usually to forward some private purpose of their own.
Type #2 - The Managed - Those who have been socially trained to be against guns, even though they usually don't actually know WHY. More often than not they are simply repeating "facts" that they heard or were given by someone else. Most have never given any -real- thought to the matter.
Type #3 - The Hoplophobes - Those who have an actual psychological illness in line with any other phobic reaction like claustrophobia.

My own approach to each group is...
Aggressors - I believe they are an enemy. I will do as much as I possibly and legally can to hinder them, bring their plans to a halt, or cause them a reversal.
Managed - I try to educate them. I will do as much as I can to teach them facts and neutralize propaganda while realizing that I must respect their right to make up their own minds on the topic.
Hoplophobes - I walk away. I don't have the disposition or psychological training to deal with an actual clinical phobia.

Once you've determined what type you are dealing with (and the vast majority will be type 2) then you can select an appropriate course of action/education.

 

[ArmedBear]

If she were interested in discussing anything, she wouldn't just be angry.

If she really thought she were right, she could back it up with facts.

This person isn't really worth the time. She won't hear you if you PROVE her 100% wrong.

I'm sure that gun rights aren't the only thing about which she is irrational. Probably could use a good shrink.

Or some good anti-hippie spray.

My wife explained "assault weapons" to someone who supported a ban. She just told this woman that these are not superweapons or even machine guns, just guns like many others, but built on military-derived frames. She now doesn't think there's any reason to ban them. She was actually listening.

One has to differentiate between someone with different opinions and an interest in discussion, and someone who just wants to scream something.

 

[Art Eatman]

Two points: The Preamble to the Bill of Rights explains the reason for its existence: To prevent the abuse of power by the State. The ultimate defense is an armed citizenry, which has no choice after legal efforts have failed.

The "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been held by federal courts to speak to one's Civil Right to stay alive. Since there is no obligation on the part of police to provide 24/7 safety/security of individuals, the individual is thus required--and, IMO, enabled--to provide for his own equal protection.

 

[W.E.G.]

Hmmmm.... sounds familiar.

The problem is not just guns,... its crime. All types of crime - not just gun crime.

If the government would do a better job of telling me how much of the money I earn I can keep, then the poor people would be able to get all the important things they cannot get now. If we just re-distribute the wealth, the conditions that breed crime would be eliminated.

Sounds logical?

Didn't they try that somewhere in recent memory?

 

[Robert Hairless]

Answer:

I know what you mean and I agree with you. Right now I can't see the cop who is supposed to be protecting you. I've been trying to find mine too but he's never there either.

I don't know what the heck we're paying the government for if it can't even make sure to get our cops looking after us.

Even after the government gets all the guns I bet it will take forever to go after the knives and the bad people who beat up decent citizens.

Does the government expect us to wait until after someone hurts us before it sends each of us our cops?

 

[Ellie]

Is there anything I could have said that would stopped her in her tracks.

Probably not. I was raised by this kind of person and I work with thousands of them (I'm an academic librarian). This kind of thinking isn't about facts, it's about beliefs. Even if you can get somebody to concede a point of fact, it won't change their beliefs (in this case, that 'guns are bad').

People like this are exercising magical thinking (if you can call it thinking) - in their mind, if you could remove the evil object (i.e. guns) then you would remove human evil. Whereas a more rational viewpoint is to accept that evil exists and debate how to manage it in the most ethical way.

If I had the answer to speaking with people like this, my life would be so much easier. As it is, I just try and keep my blood pressure at a reasonable level while asking a few questions and representing another point of view calmly - I don't want to reinforce their belief that 'gun nuts' are angry and irrational but I also don't want to feed into their irrational thought loop.

Armedbear is right that I did manage to make a friend understand that 'assault weapon' is a meaningless moniker (she actually was arguing that 'semiautos' should be banned because they cause more harm than good, and I asked her if she knew what a semiautomatic weapon is, which of course she didn't, which allowed me to make my point), but I doubt if her a priori beliefs changed one iota. No doubt she went right back to believing that if we could ban guns, we could ban bad things from happening. While we're at it, maybe we should ban men? They cause most crime in this country. (KIDDING).

Oh, but there is one thing - if you can, by any chance (and it's not likely) get an anti to a range to shoot a Marlin 39? They will see that it's FUN FUN FUN! Plus they will see that the gun did not get up and kill anybody.

 

[Blackfork]

Short answer

Logic, reason or quoting the Second Amendment is just going to get you a blank stare or a bigger torrent of invective. My response is always: "So, you think that just the Bush Administration and the police should be armed, is that right?"

And walk away.

 

[ArmedBear]

Blackfork has it right.

American liberals tend to have libertarian impulses that are buried by many layers of beliefs.

One of these beliefs is that, while their neighbors, no matter how moral, friendly, and innocuous they may seem, may be evil rapists and lunatics who, if they just get a hold of some guns, will go and rape and kill whomever they see. However, as soon as these neighbors start working for the government, as cops, bureaucrats, politicians, whatever, suddenly they become infallible, compassionate saints who will work for the "public good."

Confront this belief! Most American liberals don't trust the cops at all, unless they're talking about gun bans, when suddenly they start trusting the cops completely.

Ask what happens when citizens are stripped of all our power, and this power is given to the cops, with the promise of keeping us all safe. Mention (gently) what has happened in history, when this has been tried.

Remind your listener (gently and cleverly) of their reaction to the abuses of government power in the "war on drugs". Use their own libertarian impulses that oppose "homeland security" measures to get them to feel what it's like for government to be given more and more power in the name of safety.

This may not be easy, but the ace in the hole remains that American liberals tend to have libertarian impulses, beneath their incongruous belief in the goodness of government and its agents.

 

[Baba Louie]

Is there anything that I can add to my arguements that will at least make her rethink her fascist ideas about what it takes to make our country a safer place for all of us, especially those who think gun owners are evil and deserve to have our doors kicked in at risk of death to ourselves and families?

No. And Yes (maybe).
No. Nothing you say will shake her belief.

Yes (maybe). The last time that was tried in this nation (officially) the people revolted from their government and formed a new one that allowed them the RKBA among other freedoms (or certain limitations on their newly formed government). It has mostly worked to date in this nation; a far cry from The Soviet, Turkey, Communist China and others where gov't forces committed genocide on their unarmed peasants (and intellectuals like her as well)

Ask her if she's ever heard of George Santayana's famous quote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Ask her if she sees a police officer right that moment. Yes or no? If no... have her consider your fantasy of being "Jack the Ripper". (this one might be a little too farfetched so perchance you should tone it down)

Then go about your business. She obviously did not learn a thing when Katrina and New Orleans Officials and Citizenry interacted in a gruesome fashion or the Rodney King riots of the 90's. As such, she cannot be taught to "remember the past". She is doomed to "repeat it."

sigh

 

[Jim K]

Don't bother with logic or citing court cases.

Just smile sadly, appalled at such ignorance, and say that it is too bad that controlling types never understand the concept of freedom. Then walk away, shaking your head as if you just had a discussion with a cat about using the litter box.

Jim