I'm so angry I can't think.

[The Unknown User]

So, a friend of mine is affiliated with ProtestEasyGuns, and is organizing a protest in her area. She will be taking part in a "lie in" which is supposed to draw support for stronger gun laws to prevent future shootings.

She was close friends with one of the victims from VT, so it's easy to see why she's so involved. I shared with her previously that I couldn't believe she was supporting more laws to add to those that criminals already break, and she just shyed away.

Recently, on Facebook, her friend posted a video of the president of PEG speaking, and spreading more of her lies and filth. Of course, I responded, along with numerous other people, including numerous students from VT who completely disagreed with PEG.

So, I put in my two cents, saying that I didn't agree with PEG, and that I couldn't support PEG's purpose. My friend responded, saying that she was curious what those who disagreed with PEG thought of as the best approach is to ending future violence.

This is my response:

"I believe the best approach is to realize that laws are completely irrelevant. It was illegal for Cho to bring a gun to VT, and it was definitely illegal for him to murder his fellow students. The laws didn't stop him, and the police aren't there to protect people, despite what people may believe.

It is up to individuals to ensure their own personal safety, so I think the best approach is to stop restricting the rights of the law abiding and remove arbitrary limitations on the Second Amendment.

Jen, in the last year, there have been, what, five shootings? In four of them, the victims were, by law, sanction, rule, or policy, disarmed. They weren't allowed the means with which to defend themselves. A few months back there was a shooting at a church, where a law abiding citizen stopped the shooter with her own gun.

So called "gun free zones" just create victims. Criminals aren't going to go to places where people carry. There will probably never be a shooting at an NRA meeting.

Oh, and to clarify: I don't oppose the protest. I support ALL rights, and you have the right to protest. I don't have to like the message the protest is about, however, but whether I like something or not is entirely irrelevant.

Good luck, and I hope everything goes smoothly."

Her response:

"I don't need this right now." She then followed this with a comment about me being a "friend." Yes, it was in quotes.

Ugh.

I don't even know what to do. I just want to bang my head on the wall.

 

[Biker]

Shine it. Don't mean nothin'.

Biker

 

[gp911]

I think you've done all you could in this situation... If she is unwilling to listen to reason and would rather keep her head in the sand with feel-good quasi-solutions that infringe on law-abiding citizens rights then there is little else you can do.

Good luck with all that.

gp911

 

[MacEntyre]

You thought you had a friend, but you did not.

 

[The Unknown User]

This is so infuriating. I can understand why she's so driven by her emotions.

Ugh.

 

[Nate C.]

You did what you could: respectfully disagreed with her opinion and wished her well in her misguided endeavors. Ball's in her court. I wouldn't waste too much energy worrying about it.

I would suggest you send her some of Oleg's cool images, but it sounds like it might inflame the matter.

 

[Henry Bowman]

"I don't need this right now."

Ask her which "right" she doesn't need. Is it the right of free speech, protected by the 1A? Is it the right os assembly? Is the is basic human right of self defense? What ever right she doesn't need, she is free not to exercise. The prolem come when she advocates infringing your right, wheter you "need" them at the moment or not.

It really sounds as if she is simply misguided. She pasionately want to "do something" and has jumped on the first idea that came along, convenienty promoted by the MSM.

 

[buck00]

Your response was well-written. I would leave it at that and give her some space... let her cool off.

If she was friends with a VT victim chances are she is directing her anger/frustration/grief at guns... and by you supporting guns and CCW you are upsetting and/or confusing her. She may even be upset because this makes her rethink a knee-jerk position.

In terms of the long-term discussion with her, present the common ground. You both want the same thing: kids to be safe on college campuses. The major difference is on the methods.

However, for the short-term, I'd give her some space. Let her rant and rave with her liberal buddies... then let her cool off, and maybe you can have a rational discussion (not an emotional-based discussion) in the future.

 

[Acheron]

If she was a true friend then your means of self-defence wouldn't have mattered.

Do not weep at the passing of false friends. Be happy for the real ones that you have.


All of my friends know that I shoot and they all know that I would carry a gun if I could legally do so on campus. Not one of them cares.

 

[The Unknown User]

Nate, doing my absolute best to be civil and wish her well in her endeavors made her angry. I can only imagine what anything else would do.

Henry, that's a great response. I was thinking about the irony about how she uses her 1A rights to try to infringe on the rights of the 2A.

 

[RNB65]

So why are you angry? She's entitled to her opinions. Just because you disagree is no reason to be angry.
-

 

[The Unknown User]

Buck, I beat you to the punch:

"I understand you're upset. I'm upset, too, just for slightly different reasons. The worst part about all of this is that you and I both want the same thing, but would take entirely different routes to get there. You and I don't have to see eye to eye about it, but I just want you to know I'm not trying to hurt your feelings."

 

[The Unknown User]

RNB, it's more because I'm frustrated. I mean, she asks me what I think, and then when I don't agree with her, she snaps back at me.

I'm also entitled to be angry.

 

[Byron Quick]

This is so infuriating. I can understand why she's so driven by her emotions.

It should not infuriate you. It should make you happy. She has identified herself as someone who is not worthy of being your "friend."

Now losing a friend should be a sad thing. But you can't lose what you never had.

I would advise not wasting anymore time or effort with her.

As far as wanting the same goals but choosing different methods to reach those goals go...there are very few of the stated goals of leftists that I do not share. That doesn't mean I have to associate with leftists.

 

[The Unknown User]

I think I'm more angry because she's chosen the "dark side." She's a nice person, so it sucks to see her choosing the emotional, rhetorical, feel good side, rather than the side that uses fact, logic, and the Constituation.

I'm sure there will be many more friends I lose in the future. Such is life.

 

[LWGN]

She may still be looking for someone else (a surrogate parent, in the guise of 'Uncle Sam') to protect her and her friends from having bad things happen instead of acknowledging that as adults they are now responsible for doing the protecting themselves.

Being a grown up is tough. I don't think I really started thinking and acting like a grown up until after nearly all of my older relatives died. It focuses the mind remarkably to realize that there really is no one else to bail you out if you get in trouble. On some level, many people have the sense that there should be someone there to protect them from the consequences of their own decisions. Your friend may be dealing not only with the grief and loss of her friend from VT, but also with the loss of her own illusion of safety. She may honestly believe that there should be someone out there (the police, legislators, the nebulous "government") who can kiss away the nightmare and make her life all sweetness and light again, like Mommy and Daddy used to when she was little. It is an attractive fantasy. When it is taken away, a lot of people feel betrayed and outraged. I know I did. I got over it.

Also, if she acknowledges that more students going armed would have saved the lives at VT, she has to acknowledge that the people she trusts to protect her and her friends in fact put rules in place that led directly to the death of her friend.

Your argument shakes the foundation of her world in a big way, and probably makes her feel both more alone and vulnerable than she already felt, and, given the work she has been doing to get guns restricted, may even make her feel somewhat responsible for her friend's death, and that never feels comfortable.

Give her some space, and she might calm down. Even if none of the things I'm speculating about reflect her state of mind, grief can make people act in ways that seem crazy to someone who hasn't experienced that kind of wrenching, disorienting loss. Don't take it personally.

 

[Ash]

Well, I had two friends killed by drunk driving on two different occaisions. Yet I am not for Prohibition II.

Ash

 

[The Unknown User]

LWGN, thank you. I hadn't thought of a lot of that.

Ash, I'm really sorry to hear that, but you do make a good point.

 

[armed85]

Most of the people I've met that believe in these sort of laws of banning firearms, operate on emotion rather than reason.

Our laws are based on what a reasonable person would do. We have been a nation for long enough that we have all the criminal laws we need. It's already illegal to murder, rape, steal, etc.

Liberals, leftists, California natives, whatever you want to call them, want our government to "do something." So our politicians create more redundant laws and after the next shooting we hear "the gunman used an illegal gun to murder innocent people" instead of just hearing "the gunman murdered innocent people." The end result is the same, an unreasonable person, murdering innocent people, and breaking a law that's been in place for hundreds of years.

You wrote a reasonable argument. Your friend responded that she "doesn't need this." That's rather telling. She is obviously operating on emotion rather than use reason.

Find a new friend and continue to point out the error of her emotional argument when she speaks in a pubic forum.

 

[OneofManyJennifers]

"In terms of the long-term discussion with her, present the common ground. You both want the same thing: kids to be safe on college campuses. The major difference is on the methods.

However, for the short-term, I'd give her some space. Let her rant and rave with her liberal buddies... then let her cool off, and maybe you can have a rational discussion (not an emotional-based discussion) in the future."

I agree with Buck00. Lots of people hold very well-meaning liberal views when they're younger and learn more about the way the world works as they grow older. Instead of writing her off as a friend, be more of a friend and let your actions convince her over time rather than words.

 

[The Tourist]

The best approach is simply humor. Let me give you an example.

This "lie in" is an older tactic. At one point they used pairs of kids' shoes. During one of the first "lie ins," someone took a picture and showed it to a riding buddy of mine. Confused, he asked what he was looking at. He was told, "It's 100 dead liberals."

He shrugged, nodded, and said, "Well it ain't much, but it's a start..."

You can drive yourself nuts facing every inconvenience with added blood pressure. They will protest just as you will write letters to the editor. The sun shines tomorrow. Perhaps the best advice my friend gave is to shrug and laugh.

 

[Kind of Blued]

First of all, I can't believe what is happening here wasn't included in the "THR Inevitabilities" thread, probably due to the fact that the truth makes us look bad.

People have flaws. I have friends that are slightly racist, ignorant of history, don't see the value in the details, think their mistakes can be blamed on a catalyst, etc. If I decided that people who don't have the same values as me shouldn't be my friends, I would have to perform an awkward interrogation process upon meeting people. I would also have no friends.

Just because someone doesn't like guns, doesn't understand your logic, or doesn't even understand why your inalienable rights should remain intact, it does not mean they are unworthy of your friendship. That is unless you are a person completely void of dynamic and have a sole interest.

Rob87, I'm sure you have your reasons for befriending this woman, and your response was a fine one. Hers was indeed a bit immature, but it is up to you, not faceless personalities on the internet, to decide who your friends should be.

That being said, I appreciate all of you.

 

[boggyboy72]

What I say is ''What if when the nutjob ran in and started shooting,4 or 5 people with ccw stood up and ended it?''give em something to think about.All the shootings make me want to carry everywere all the time.Better to be judged by 12 then who knows how many carried by 6.

 

[vpost]

Sometimes it's in how it is all presented, I heard a story of two gentleman having a discussion on skeet shooting, and turned to AR's and AK's, Gentleman #3 overhearing the conversation ask first two "why do you feel the need to have such weapons, or any weapons at all? #1 says he is not in the mood and leaves, #2 says for the protection of my home and family. #3 says just call the police, run away, lock yourself in a room, and many other alternatives, meanwhile #2 pulls a pen out of his pocket and pokes #3 in the chest and says give me your money, #3 shocked says what, #2 pokes him again and says give me your money.#2 says you don't know who I am I just robbed you and stabbed you with my knife, holding up his pen, he asks where are the police? #3 looks at #2 and says I think I may need to be reeducated and leaves. That last line says it all "reeducated". Sometime it's the perspective that is flawed. My advice is don't give up on her, reeducate her, and over time she may return from the dark side.

Vince

 

[JCMAG]

I can understand your frustrations. Frankly, I don't discuss gun politics with people who I don't feel as though I can trust to be reasonable.

Your friend has good intentions. She sounds like a sweetheart, but unfortunately delicate sensibilities are a big part of the non-sensibility of many Americans these days. Passions disarmed Britain, fortunately we Americans have a little more fortitude. Not enough, but a little more to get by on.

Perhaps you should not discuss politics with this woman. I'm sure you have lots of other things to talk about. However, definitely keep up the good work challenging the thinking of anti-liberty organizations.