Ever go on non gun political forums?

[TimSr]

I've long ago found a few things that are quite typical.

Anti's tend to parrot what some politician says, and usually have very little, if any, actual, personal hands on knowledge of guns which makes any rational dicussion near impossible, so you get the inevitable "that's a lie" and your a ______ stalemate.

Refuting or even questioning any parroted "truth" brings out anger and hostility.

I think most of the antis have little interest in an actual discussion, and often care nothing about the veracity of their own arguments. I think they do it to support whatever politician they are enamoured with, and have no interest in whether its actually true or not.

Tried to dicsuss this with lady I've known for years past weekend. She said I wanted her children and grandchildren to be killed by guns. I said her children and grandchildren would be safer in my home with me and my guns than in a prison full of criminals who had no guns. She totally freaked out, said my personal attack on her children and grandchildren was uncalled for. Prime example.

 

[lilguy]

Democratic underground, now there's a thin skinned bunch of zombies.

 

[Deanimator]

Refuting or even questioning any parroted "truth" brings out anger and hostility.

That's my bread and butter. That's what lawyers call "statements against penal interest" and "excited utterances".

I ESPECIALLY love it when they go racial. Then it's "Junior Rodeo" on. I've thrown their own racist statements back in their faces YEARS, even DECADES later.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Likewise.

On cleveland.com, we jump on the lies and misleading statements of the anti-gun cult and don't let them slide. We ask hard questions that even Fox doesn't ask.

To the best of my knowledge, my question to an anti-gun cultist on cleveland.com was the FIRST time I saw anybody ask, "If voter ID laws are racist, aren't gun owner ID laws even MORE racist, given the Jim Crow history of gun control?" That straight up reduced the cultist to momentary silence. In the end he was reduced to minimizing Jim Crow and telling the LIE that he'd never heard of "literacy" tests being used to suppress the Black vote. You can't tell me that outside of the Democratic Underground website, people don't notice such things.

Good work! However as I said in the OP-

The hysterical anti gunners who think the NRA is the devil and no American should own a gun. As you can imagine they never present facts or figures or their solution, just rant and rave "something must be done." I don't waste time on them.

These people are not worth your effort. They made up their minds [such as they have] at birth and are not open to debate.
Concentrate on the "not sure."

 

[Deanimator]

These people are not worth your effort. They made up their minds [such as they have] at birth and are not open to debate.
Concentrate on the "not sure."

Oh, but they're VERY much worth my effort.

I have not the SLIGHTEST expectation of changing THEIR "minds".

Rather, I use their lies, ignorance and irrational bigotry to change the minds of OBSERVERS.

When one of them says that people opposing fascistic gun controls "are like over-educated, New York Jewish lawyers opposing prayer in schools" (a nearly exact quote), what kind of impression do you think that makes on undecided Jewish bystanders?

I've seen their dishonesty, racism, sexism, misogyny and homophobia make quite an impression on the undecided. It's RARELY a FAVORABLE impression.

 

[Aragon]

I do, and inevitably after a shooting a gun control thread will pop up, usually started by a anti. Remember this is cross mix of posters interested in politics and guns are just one of the many topics.
I find 3 different types of posters on these threads:
The hysterical anti gunners who think the NRA is the devil and no American should own a gun. As you can imagine they never present facts or figures or their solution, just rant and rave "something must be done." I don't waste time on them.

The pro gun people who, unlike the above, present their case with logic and strong arguments, not emotion. I don't need to tell them anything.

The fence sitters that don't know what to think...

Extremist whack-jobbies are common on both extreme -- both pro-gun and anti-gun. There's also a great deal of ignorance on both sides -- again, weighted heavily at both extreme ends...

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Oh, but they're VERY much worth my effort.

I have not the SLIGHTEST expectation of changing THEIR "minds".

Rather, I use their lies, ignorance and irrational bigotry to change the minds of OBSERVERS.

When one of them says that people opposing fascistic gun controls "are like over-educated, New York Jewish lawyers opposing prayer in schools" (a nearly exact quote), what kind of impression do you think that makes on undecided Jewish bystanders?

I've seen their dishonesty, racism, sexism, misogyny and homophobia make quite an impression on the undecided. It's RARELY a FAVORABLE impression.

Good point. The anti's never look good when you lift up their rock and expose them to sunlight.

 

[Deanimator]

Good point. The anti's never look good when you lift up their rock and expose them to sunlight.

And I do it every chance I get.

It helps to have heard ALL of their "arguments" and to know them better than they do.

It also helps to be from Chicago, and to KNOW where registration inevitably leads.

 

[TimSr]

Extremist whack-jobbies are common on both extreme -- both pro-gun and anti-gun. There's also a great deal of ignorance on both sides -- again, weighted heavily at both extreme ends...

What is the "extreme" pro gun position?

 

[Deanimator]

What is the "extreme" pro gun position?

To hear the AHSA types tell it, it's to NOT meekly submit to whatever the most extreme elements of the anti-gun cult want.

 

[McAngus]

Awesome point! seriously freaking awesome! If all of us helped just 10, 10 freaking people our whole lives, think if you help a family of 5 out, than you are already halfway to the number 10 goal. If all of us did this, within a generation or two things would be so much better. Within our lifetime maybe.

 

[txblackout]

What is the "extreme" pro gun position?

That there are no laws that would reduce gun violence. That the 2nd amendment is an absolute right with no restrictions allowed.

Here are a couple of the most common things I see when debating my friends (who are almost all liberals)

1) conflating lowering GUN murders/violence with lower murders/violence. The Antis always talk about lowering GUN deaths. There ARE correlations of gun control and reduced GUN deaths. But there is no correlation to gun control and reduced deaths.

2) A heavy focus on the things that happen the least (like banning assault weapons because of high profile mass shootings)

3) here are common rebuttals:
a) protection against tyranny - you would lose a battle against drones/nukes/modern army anyway. You are stupid to think you could resist tyranny
b) Im safer with gun - you are much more likely to die from your own gun than to need to use it to kill someone. Why do you need a gun at the <insert place here>
c) They believe they are less safe when you have a gun
d) we dont need the laws to be 100% perfect, just better than what we have now
4) pushing for insurance/licensing, because cars. I point out that you dont need a license to buy a car that in most states you do need a license/training to carry in public. Regardless, the number of gun negligence is in the thousands, while car accidents are in the millions.

5) the right never offers any suggestions to reduce the violence.

I have tried to focus my solutions on poverty and the violent subcultures. They really dont like that.

 

[TruthTellers]

What is the "extreme" pro gun position?

Pre NFA regulations and no background checks of any kind. Walk in, buy a Tommy Gun with cash, and walk out.

It's funny that back then that law was passed because the criminals were shooting each other or were outgunning the cops, there were no mass shootings back then in movie theaters or schools. Today, I don't see the logic behind what makes a shotgun with a 14" barrel more deadly than one with an 18" barrel or how a 12" rifle is more dangerous than one with a 16" barrel. Sure, someone could conceal the gun better, but if someone is planning to do nefarious things with the gun anyway, what difference does it make how long it is?

And don't get me started on suppressors.

The only two things I can agree with that the NFA outlaws is destructive devices and full auto.

Don't bother bringing this stuff up on a non-gun forum though. I've told people that there's been enough progress made the past 80 years to minimize guns from getting into the wrong hands without infringing on the people's rights.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

And I do it every chance I get.

It helps to have heard ALL of their "arguments" and to know them better than they do.

It also helps to be from Chicago, and to KNOW where registration inevitably leads.

As I mentioned in a earlier post, a good place to find "neutral" political forums is on NFL team fan boards.
I saw you where in Ohio, so I went to the Browns site and bingo a gun control thread is right there.http://www.barkinghard.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?20-Church-and-State&

 

[Deanimator]

As I mentioned in a earlier post, a good place to find "neutral" political forums is on NFL team fan boards.

If that works for somebody, then I encourage.

Personally, I have ZERO interest in non-shooting sports and my presence in a sports forum would be the very definition of trolling.

Cleveland.com is a much better for ME.

 

[TimSr]

That there are no laws that would reduce gun violence. That the 2nd amendment is an absolute right with no restrictions allowed.

Guess I don't subscribe to the liberal definition of "extreme".

You or I may not agree to that interpretation, but there logical and reasonable arguments to be made that the Constitution means exactly what it says, and there is a significant following for that interpretation, which you might charaterize as more conservative, but what was interpretation of the same law for 1 1/2 centuries could hardly be called "extreme".

To hear the AHSA types tell it, it's to NOT meekly submit to whatever the most extreme elements of the anti-gun cult want.

This is where I see the word abused and manipulated, and why I'm offended when it is applied as derogatory political tactic against reasonable people who disagree.

Pre NFA regulations and no background checks of any kind. Walk in, buy a Tommy Gun with cash, and walk out.

You can like it or not, and I will concede that it's lost legal ground, never to be recovered, but I believe that is exactly what, not only the 2A was intended to protect, but also the burden of the state to prove your loss of those rights was under due process, and not the citizen's burden to prove he has never had them adjudicated away. You may not agree, but what was the law of the land for a century and half is hardly "extreme".

I'm not arguing that your interpretions are wrong or right. I'm arguing that your characterization of the more conservative interpretation as "extreme" is not accurrate. It is just another politically twisted buzzword that the antis throw around at their political adversaries to make themselves sound "reasonable", to a public that doesn't undertsand what the words really mean. The list includes and is not limited to: extreme or extremist, automatic weapons, weapons of war, assault weapons, semi-automatic, common sense gun laws, gun safety laws, gun violence, and many more.

 

[Aragon]

What is the "extreme" pro gun position?

Suggesting that absolutely no restrictions on the Second Amendment are lawful.

Chanting "shall not be infringed" in response to any question.

Denial about everything.

Necessarily equating liberalism to anti-gun.

Encouraging stunts like the open carry of ARs/AKs at Starbucks.

Things like that...