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

[Guy B. Meredith]

That stuff about "saving one child" infers that you as an individual are liable or responsible, violent because you have a firearm. My personal response is "Did my gun kill any kids? Then why do you insist on punishing me for that crime?" It's personal and we need to be seen as individuals, not statistics.

On the other hand, a few years back I got irritated at an acquaintance who noticed my NRA sticker on my car with a stuffy comment and I replied in an extremely sarcastic tone, "Yeah, I'm in the NRA. Feeling badly as I haven't killed my quota of kids today." Having the stupidity of her comment pushed in her face ended that conversation.

 

[justice06rr]

My only advice is not to argue or debate with them.

Have an informal discussion instead, and educate them about firearms. If they are still firm about being anti- , stop and move on.

 

[General Geoff]

"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

That can be summarized as,

"If you think the government should still have guns, you're not anti-gun; you're pro-tyranny.

 

[DeepSouth]

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their most common responses is " the founders couldn't have envisioned such modern lethal firearms therefore the 2nd is outdated". Which I then respond " well if true then they couldn't have envisioned internet, TV and radio so therefore the 1st is outdated so should certain entertainers and radio people be fingerprinted and registered or banned and should certain video games be banned?"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 also like to point out that any Ol' civilian could then (and now) own an infantry cannon with all the balls and grape shot they could afford, not to mention all the black powder they could afford. Even if it were TONS, it was still legal. Then I like to challage them to find ONE weapon that was used in the revolutionary war that a common man couldn't own. If there were any I don't know about them and apparently nobody else does either.

Posted via iPhone

 

[Kiln]

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.

Alright here's the argument I use against the "nuke" or "modern arms are more dangerous than the founding fathers could have imagined" argument:

The framers never imagined a weapon capable of destroying an entire city or cities and therefore there was nothing about it in the constitution. I do however, doubt that they would've been okay with the government having this kind of power in the first place.

Firearms on the other hand are specifically mentioned under the second amendment. The founders were comfortable with ownership of potentially dangerous weapons at the time and they were working on them even then.

Cannons and grenades were privately owned and unregulated at the time. They were not afraid of firearms. In fact, at that time you were considered dishonorable if you carried a firearm CONCEALED instead of open carrying. Now that open carry has been demonized and forced into the closet, concealed carry is necessary.

Gun owners are everywhere in America. They make up every race, religion, and party. The vast majority of gun owners never commit a crime with their firearm despite there being millions of guns out there.

In some places the response time of police officers is over 20 minutes. Even if you live inside of a large city, three minutes is a long time if you're unarmed and afraid.

People need to be able to defend themselves. The framers never intended for you to have to sit back and hope the police arrived in time. They understood the right to defend to be a basic human right that was beyond questioning. If they could only see what the political system has become, they'd be sick with grief over the people trying their best to find a workaround to the US Constitution and to disarm the very people that the constitution was written to protect.