I've been debating with a few anti gun people lately

[lionking]

On a couple forums. There have been a couple with good knowledge about guns and respond polite who take their opinion for whatever reason but I got to say the vast majority of them deflect the issue, use insults instead of challenging what they have been asked or shown, and who use stupid responses or questions like " should you be able to own a nuke then?"

One of their most common responses is " the founders couldn't have envisioned such modern lethal firearms therefore the 2nd is outdated". Which I then respond " well if true then they couldn't have envisioned internet, TV and radio so therefore the 1st is outdated so should certain entertainers and radio people be fingerprinted and registered or banned and should certain video games be banned?"

I don't support such measures but just saying. They won't respond to that though, they go back to deflecting and insulting. Don't bother trying to change these people's mind or show them the deceit that people like Cuomo or Feinstein use, you'll be wasting your time.

I DID reach a co-worker who is a Obama supporter because of other issues though for him it being healthcare, I did reach him to understand the deceit and lies of anti-gunners so use your time on the unknowing and middle ground people instead. Forget about debating hardened anti gun people, use your time for better things like looking for the last .223 or 9mm in country.

 

[gearjammer-2000]

quite honestly I have found that I am not debating with the anti's
its more like arguing with idiots

 

[lionking]

^ Idiots who support very shrewd and deceitful politicians like Cuomo and Feinstein, remember the scene in the one Star Wars movie " this is how the republic dies, with thunderous applause".

 

[Cesiumsponge]

"If you are for gun control, then you're not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. You'll need to go around, pass laws, and shoot people who resist, kick in doors, and throw people in jail, and so on; rip up families, just to take away guns. So it's not that you're anti-gun, because [...] you'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns, so you're very pro-gun, you just believe that only the government (which is of course so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward-thinking) should be allowed to have guns. So there's no such thing as gun control, there's only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions. Gun control is a misnomer." Stefan Molyneux

 

[Ivy Mike]

The most logically fallacious arguments I have encountered have not been on Democratic Underground.

They have been right here.

 

[Twiki357]

Debating with a gun control advocate is like talking to a brick wall. Every so often you may find a loose brick, but the wall never moves.

 

[Baba Louie]

Whenever debating with anti rights people, always consider that not all of the original 13 colonies would even ratify the BORs. So the anti right's crowd have always been among us and always will be.

Simply ask them, "Do you believe in inalienable rights? Do you own any arms?" follow up with Voltaires quote, "I believe in your right to free speech and while I do not agree with what you say, would fight and defend your right to the death." Because that will make you stand out from them and their crowd who cannot fight or defend others freedoms and rights. In fact they would prefer taking away rights of others first (perhaps... apparently) to make "their" lives "safe and secure" and screw Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Sad that.

 

[radiotom]

The most logically fallacious arguments I have encountered have not been on Democratic Underground.

They have been right here.

Name some, please.

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

^ stop with that, we've all seen it.

Try the most popular thread going right now if you want a cited example, "NCIS"

Please cite where you got "Name some please" from. Mr. 118 posts who is challenging something specific regarding common themes here. troll much?

 

[radiotom]

^ stop with that, we've all seen it.

Try the most popular thread going right now if you want a cited example, "NCIS"

Please cite where you got "Name some please" from. Mr. 118 posts who is challenging something specific regarding common themes here. troll much?

Difficult to respond to a comment so asinine, but let me try.

The democratic underground is pretty notorious for having despicable and illogical comments posted. I would simply like to see a small comparison of this and THR. Any website that allows anonymous comments will have stupid things posted. I think the mods do a pretty good job of cleaning up the crap here.

Not to mention, if you think the situation here is on par with the democratic underground why do you frequent THR?

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

I know not this other site you troll of. Nice cozy up to the mods maneuver.

 

[Robert]

I'd like to see a citation of these "logically fallacious" arguments. Does my request count? If someone is going to say that DU is more enlightened than THR or that the arguments on DU are more logical I'd like some specific examples to compare. It is the responcibility of the one makeing a claim to support their claim.

 

[ol' scratch]

When it was still raw I was arguing with these people. I came to the conclusion that my time is better spent researching ways of thwarting their laws through civil disobedience, writing representatives and congressmen, thinking of ways to organize protests, and trying to discuss the issue with some of the FUDDS in my family to garner their support. The fools online are often trolls anyway. The more you feed them, the more they act like fools.

 

[ball3006]

I say I am for gun control. With gun control, I am able to hit the bullseye of the target. They just walk away.....chris3

 

[akv3g4n]

I never understand the argument that the founders couldn't have known what future weapons would be developed so the 2nd amendment is no longer applicable to many modern firearms. Many of our founding fathers were inventors, entrepreneurs and innovators in their time. I'm pretty sure that people of their intelligence and determination were keenly aware of what the future of weapons development could bring.

 

[radiotom]

I never understand the argument that the founders couldn't have known what future weapons would be developed so the 2nd amendment is no longer applicable to many modern firearms. Many of our founding fathers were inventors, entrepreneurs and innovators in their time. I'm pretty sure that people of their intelligence and determination were keenly aware of what the future of weapons development could bring.

I'm sure the thought of the government having those weapons and nobody else made them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[GAF]

I debate, I do not argue. I debate with facts, logic and reason. If the other side of the argument does not want to have a civil discussion then I will not engage them at all. I`ll not be baited in their illogical unworkable schemes and talk.

 

[JustinJ]

There have been a couple with good knowledge about guns and respond polite who take their opinion for whatever reason but I got to say the vast majority of them deflect the issue, use insults instead of challenging what they have been asked or shown

Um, read the posts in this thread. Oh, the irony.

 

[SoCalNoMore]

I would like to offer my thoughts on this. If the person allows you to talk without interrupting, I ask them this;

Do you feel you are immune to crimes committed against you? Are you immune to someone breaking in to your home?

What would you do if you are watching a movie on Friday night with your wife and children and someone knocks on the door, as you open it they kick it in. Are you going to run to a phone or reach for your gun that is under the couch? If you are a person that chooses to not have a gun, what would you do?

Guns are not just about protection, hunting or sport. They are about individual sovereignty.

In California where I grew up, in 1995 home invasion robberies in and around Whittier went from 1 a month to 3-5 a week because of the AWB.

One last thought. When I was in the Sheriff's academy in San Bernardino, CA back in 1995 we were often trained in "scenarios" to help us prepare for the real world. During our crimes against person class we were told a story from the DA about a man that liked to have guns.

Here is that story;

A regular guy like us just got married. His wife wanted to have children, as did he. She stated that before they have kids, she would like to have the house gun free because as a child her brother at 5yo accidently discharged a .22 cal revolver in the house. Being a loving husband, he said he would lock up the guns, but she stood her ground. He sold the guns. about 10 months later the couple was sleeping in the middle class suburban home when 3 men broke in. They beat the husband and tied him up. Proceeded to sexually assault his wife while he watched. The assault was so bad she could no longer bear children.

I ask any of you, could you live with yourself if this happened to you?

 

[SoCalNoMore]

When it was still raw I was arguing with these people. I came to the conclusion that my time is better spent researching ways of thwarting their laws through civil disobedience, writing representatives and congressmen, thinking of ways to organize protests, and trying to discuss the issue with some of the FUDDS in my family to garner their support. The fools online are often trolls anyway. The more you feed them, the more they act like fools.

This is exactly what I did/am doing. My time is too valuable to spend it debating with closed minded people that are uninformed.

We used to say that people like this have minds like cement. All mixed up and already set.

 

[SoCalNoMore]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGaDAThOHhA

A good video to watch. I hear a lot of people say we need to be like Australia with gun control. I think, NOT.

 

[gossamer]

On a couple forums. There have been a couple with good knowledge about guns and respond polite who take their opinion for whatever reason but I got to say the vast majority of them deflect the issue, use insults instead of challenging what they have been asked or shown, and who use stupid responses or questions

Both sides are guilty of same. I've read some of the same kinds of rhetorical "Tactics" coming from Pro (The NRA) and Con (The Brady Cult) 2A folks. It's part of the landscape, unfortunately.

One of their most common responses is " the founders couldn't have envisioned such modern lethal firearms therefore the 2nd is outdated". Which I then respond " well if true then they couldn't have envisioned internet, TV and radio so therefore the 1st is outdated so should certain entertainers and radio people be fingerprinted and registered or banned and should certain video games be banned?"

I respectfully suggest that what "The Founders" thought about guns largely ends up being a "push." The founders denied gun ownership to slaves, free blacks, and law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution. They also required the purchase of guns. 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man purchase a gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and registered on public rolls.


Founders' intent cuts both ways.

 

[morcey2]

What would you do if you are watching a movie on Friday night with your wife and children and someone knocks on the door, as you open it they kick it in. Are you going to run to a phone or reach for your gun that is always on my person? If you are a person that chooses to not have a gun, what would you do?

Fixed it for ya.

 

[Ivy Mike]

I'd like to see a citation of these "logically fallacious" arguments. Does my request count? If someone is going to say that DU is more enlightened than THR or that the arguments on DU are more logical I'd like some specific examples to compare. It is the responcibility of the one makeing a claim to support their claim.

That thread you locked last night had a slew of them.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8662707&postcount=202
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8662678&postcount=194

Both of those implied some doom and gloom scenario of gun confiscations stemming from background checks yet when called on it, never offered any evidence to back it up. The ONLY attempt at it came from a third person who posted a picture of various dictators, none of whom were Americans. The attempt was half-hearted and blatantly faulty in that none of these countries enjoyed the legal protections of firearm ownership that Americans do. Most of them do not have a constitution in place or were the subjects of military coups.

I even cited current registration schemes that have not lead to confiscation.

When crime statistics were brought up, the example of Los Angeles came forward. I quickly destroyed that by pointing out Houston has a larger violent crime problem than Los Angeles. This should not be the case if guns in the hands of citizens really do prevent crime.


The trouble here is that the same premise gets used over and over. The premise is that if one law is failing to prevent crime, why should another law succeed. While on its face, this seems valid, all it serves to accomplish is...nothing. It isn't an actual argument. They haven't countered the opposition.


The biggest problem here is that such arguments, when applied to a national stage, offer no solution to gun violence. More comprehensive screenings of gun buyers might yield a few more guns kept out of the hands of criminals. More importantly, it is a seemingly meaningful concession that may be of little actual use but it puts the ball back in the hands of the pro-gun groups. Now we can use our concession to begin something truly useful like the legalization and regulation of drug sales. The strengthening of social programs to actually fight poverty.

While not popular topics in conservative circles, they have a much larger impact on criminal behavior which we all know to be the real problem. Guns simply make it easier to kill the member of an opposing gang. You can take the guns away from them but you still leave the gang bangers. Start by removing the things they fight over and they won't fight over them. Begin to improve their social and economic standing and you'll find the gangs aren't as attractive.

but I had to constantly go back and beat down the same tired arguments so the thread degenerated into clusterf***.

 

[Fleetwood_Captain]

Although the founding fathers wouldn't have been able to take modern weapons completely into consideration, they surely would not have been oblivious to the notion of advances like repeating firearms.

Although black powder firearms of their time were somewhat primitive by today's standards, Air Guns were different. Air guns in the 1700's shot bullets at comparable velocities to black powder and were quite advanced for their day.

The first repeating rifle was an Air Rifle, The Girandoni. The Girandoni had a 21 round magazine, with an interchangeable air reservoir that was said to be good for 30 shots. It had been in use by the Austrian military for 8 years by the time the US Constitution was ratified.

Compared to other rifles, the Girandoni was the "assault weapon" of it's day. Yet I don't recall any of the founding fathers calling the government to ban this item.