silicosys4
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2012
- Messages
- 3,741
I just finished having an argument with a friend of mine who is self described as "pro gun" but being in favor of "common sense".
His argument revolves around his personal experiences. He was convicted of a B&E felony at age 19 in which he was "cheated" into getting a felony when the homeowner overestimated the damage value on paper when his friends and him broke into his house and were caught. Smaller damage value = non-felony charge. It was just a one time thing, stupid kid thing, supposedly, and since then he has kept clean, stayed employed, and gone to school, but his mistake cost him.
Basically he used GZ's recent shenanigans to start an argument about the merit of further 2a restrictions based on "irresponsible gun owners and mental patients"
He basically feels that "bad" and "irresponsible" gun owners should have their 2A rights completely removed immediately, and that "babbling mental patients" should have their 2A rights completely revoked. He said that "the government can be trusted to decide who's "crazy" and who's not, and that arguing otherwise is redneck paranoia.
His definition of "bad and irresponsible" gun ownership would be "carrying your gun in public, hurting people, and scaring people."
He said he has seen "plenty of people who are crazy and own guns". When I asked if those people had hurt anyone or done anything illegal he said no, but common sense says they should have their 2a rights revoked anyways, and so should other crazy people. I asked him if he was aware that hurting people was illegal and carried penalties of the law up to and including felony charges that restrict 2a rights for those convicted of the appropriate level of violent or nonviolent crime, and he said it wasn't enough, we need to be proactive....that current penalties for irresponsible gun owners weren't strict enough.
I reminded him that due to his felony charge for a nonviolent crime he committed not involving a gun that he was unable to own guns, and that he often argued against the restrictions to his life in that regard, how did he think other people who were convicted of non violent "irresponsible" gun useage not already defined as illegal should be penalized?
The argument went downhill rapidly from there, with his last words being " so you think some 19 year old kid (himself at his felony) should be restricted but not raving lunatics? Just the wild Wild West out there? Some friend." At that point I was done and just turned my back and walked away.
How do you successfully argue with the "pro gun" anti? The guy who plays holier than thou and feels what's good for the goose is not good for the gander? I'm honestly pretty much done with the guy as I've taken big steps to make progress with his attitude, and always it comes back to some stupid argument that involves restricting someone else's right for "common sense" while restoring his rights that were removed for what I believe is a justified punishment.
His argument revolves around his personal experiences. He was convicted of a B&E felony at age 19 in which he was "cheated" into getting a felony when the homeowner overestimated the damage value on paper when his friends and him broke into his house and were caught. Smaller damage value = non-felony charge. It was just a one time thing, stupid kid thing, supposedly, and since then he has kept clean, stayed employed, and gone to school, but his mistake cost him.
Basically he used GZ's recent shenanigans to start an argument about the merit of further 2a restrictions based on "irresponsible gun owners and mental patients"
He basically feels that "bad" and "irresponsible" gun owners should have their 2A rights completely removed immediately, and that "babbling mental patients" should have their 2A rights completely revoked. He said that "the government can be trusted to decide who's "crazy" and who's not, and that arguing otherwise is redneck paranoia.
His definition of "bad and irresponsible" gun ownership would be "carrying your gun in public, hurting people, and scaring people."
He said he has seen "plenty of people who are crazy and own guns". When I asked if those people had hurt anyone or done anything illegal he said no, but common sense says they should have their 2a rights revoked anyways, and so should other crazy people. I asked him if he was aware that hurting people was illegal and carried penalties of the law up to and including felony charges that restrict 2a rights for those convicted of the appropriate level of violent or nonviolent crime, and he said it wasn't enough, we need to be proactive....that current penalties for irresponsible gun owners weren't strict enough.
I reminded him that due to his felony charge for a nonviolent crime he committed not involving a gun that he was unable to own guns, and that he often argued against the restrictions to his life in that regard, how did he think other people who were convicted of non violent "irresponsible" gun useage not already defined as illegal should be penalized?
The argument went downhill rapidly from there, with his last words being " so you think some 19 year old kid (himself at his felony) should be restricted but not raving lunatics? Just the wild Wild West out there? Some friend." At that point I was done and just turned my back and walked away.
How do you successfully argue with the "pro gun" anti? The guy who plays holier than thou and feels what's good for the goose is not good for the gander? I'm honestly pretty much done with the guy as I've taken big steps to make progress with his attitude, and always it comes back to some stupid argument that involves restricting someone else's right for "common sense" while restoring his rights that were removed for what I believe is a justified punishment.
Last edited: