My debate with a liberal/he was a gun owner

[Deanimator]

If there is one thing I have learned, I pretty much know there is no such thing as a pro gun liberal.

Then you've learned the wrong thing.

I'm VERY liberal.

I don't care how much dope you smoke at home.

I don't care if you marry another guy.

I don't care how many early term abortions a woman has.


I don't see ANYWHERE in those beliefs (among others) anything which contradicts the right of somebody to defend themselves either from criminal violence or governmental oppression.

Don't confuse "liberal" and "progressive". The former is somebody who thinks women should be able to have abortions. The latter is somebody who thinks that Stalin should get credit for the "good" things he did.

 

[joab]

they say discouraging statements like "you can't teach the anti's" even if they aren't anti's.

Well that is true. A typical anti is an anti through and through.
However the fence sitters and those spectators willing to actually hear differing opinion are the real target
Which is why, in my opinion, our arguments must be concise,verifiable and not dependent on the same type of propaganda
Counter their statistics with equally compelling statistics and use that to explain to them why statistics are useless.

 

[PILMAN]

Then you've learned the wrong thing.

I'm VERY liberal.

I don't care how much dope you smoke at home.

I don't care if you marry another guy.

I don't care how many early term abortions a woman has.


I don't see ANYWHERE in those beliefs (among others) anything which contradicts the right of somebody to defend themselves either from criminal violence or governmental oppression.

Don't confuse "liberal" and "progressive". The former is somebody who thinks women should be able to have abortions. The latter is somebody who thinks that Stalin should get credit for the "good" things he did.

Ok then you wouldn't mind answering this question as you are a liberal, do you believe in the right to bear arms without any restrictions? Basically do you believe that I should be able to own a AK47 or a M16 with a 30 round magazine and a bipod and a folding stock or is this unecessary for "hunting"?

 

[Keith Wheeler]

The way I tried to explain to him about your average semi auto and the ak47...

Hmmm, I seem to have the same problem trying to explaining sub-machineguns to supposedly pro-gun conservatives.

You claim: "some liberals claim to be pro-gun, but aren't because they can't understand that semi-auto military style firearms are still guns."

Same thing. Look at the number of supposedly pro-gun conservatives that go spastic over the mention of full auto. There are quite a few that either snub it "full auto really isn't worth anything" or have no problem with the NFA.

 

[PILMAN]

Hmmm, I seem to have the same problem trying to explaining sub-machineguns to supposedly pro-gun conservatives.

You claim: "some liberals claim to be pro-gun, but aren't because they can't understand that semi-auto military style firearms are still guns."

Same thing. Look at the number of supposedly pro-gun conservatives that go spastic over the mention of full auto. There are quite a few that either snub it "full auto really isn't worth anything" or have no problem with the NFA.

Your right, just 9 times out of 10, most liberals are going to flinch at the mention of the word "ak47". There are anti gun conservatives, actually quite a few of them. My mothers boyfriend is somewhat like that, he is from New Jersey and a republican/conservative who supports Bush, and owns a handgun. He believes in the right to self defense, but sees no reason why someone would need an AK47 or an AR15. I showed him hollowpoints and the 12 round magazines and he kept asking if they were legal and was concerned. He had stated "I don't know, I mean these things could seriously kill someone". He also feels that it's possible to convert a AK47 semi auto to a fully auto and I tried explaining that as well.

Personally I think the majority of the population supports some form of gun control, it's difficult enough to convince people that the AK47's and AR15's sold in stores today are indeed semi auto and I'm sure more people would be accepting of that if they knew. Convincing someone we have the right to own full auto weapons or should have the right is quite difficult however and I think a very large majority of people are going to think we're nuts simply debating that we should own full autos though i'm sure it doesn't hurt to try, I try to debate with antis with baby steps, otherwise it's difficult for anyone to take me seriously in the debate. Sometimes debating with them works, othertimes it doesn't. An example, I converted a liberal to a pro-gunner and telling him I should own a full auto definitely wouldn't have convinced him at all, so I tried explaining to him about semi auto rifles and showing him statistics and over time I was able to convince him about civilians being able to own full autos.

 

[Keith Wheeler]

I try to debate with antis with baby steps, otherwise it's difficult for anyone to take me seriously in the debate. Sometimes debating with them works, othertimes it doesn't. An example, I converted a liberal to a pro-gunner

One good way to start with those "baby step" debates is to stop equating "liberal" with "anti-gun".

In my mind I'm a "libertarian", but some folks here would call me a "liberal", possibly even "leftist" or "socialist". While I might lay claim to the first too, I don't the second two. Why liberal? I don't care about someone's language, sexual orientation, race, color, creed, religion (or lack thereof). I believe that all are created equal and enjoy certain rights. I also believe that the quality of a nation can be partially assessed by how that nation treats its poor and disenfranchised. I believe that it makes more sense (morally and economically) to try and help someone on the front-end than punish them on the back-end. I believe in capitalism but am doubtful of consumeristic corporatism. Like I said, there are many on this forum who'd call me a "liberal", and not in a joking friendly way.

Ok then you wouldn't mind answering this question as you are a liberal, do you believe in the right to bear arms without any restrictions? Basically do you believe that I should be able to own a AK47 or a M16 with a 30 round magazine and a bipod and a folding stock or is this unecessary for "hunting"?

I own two Galils with (9) 50 rnd magazines, and (30) 35 rnd magazines. I have an evil folding stock stainless mini-14, a CAR-15, three Uzis (with some 40+ "high capacity" magazines), and two semi-auto belt feds. For Chanukah I gave my wife an Israeli Heavy Barrel FAL. Question answered?

 

[PILMAN]

I own two Galils with (9) 50 rnd magazines, and (30) 35 rnd magazines. I have an evil folding stock stainless mini-14, a CAR-15, three Uzis (with some 40+ "high capacity" magazines), and two semi-auto belt feds. For Chanukah I gave my wife an Israeli Heavy Barrel FAL. Question answered?

Question was meant for Deanimator. I have no problem with liberterians, infact I share pretty similar views regarding free trade as I am against outsourcing to 3rd world countrys and globalization. I wouldn't consider you a liberal at all. Although I would love to own a Galil being Jewish myself

 

[Deanimator]

Ok then you wouldn't mind answering this question as you are a liberal, do you believe in the right to bear arms without any restrictions? Basically do you believe that I should be able to own a AK47 or a M16 with a 30 round magazine and a bipod and a folding stock or is this unecessary for "hunting"?

At one time I wouldn't, but I was radicalized by eight years of Clinton. At first I thought anybody should be able to have any semi-auto. Now I'd remove all restrictions on full-auto, SBRs, etc.

I don't hunt. The last thing I hunted was North Koreans on the DMZ. I don't own a single gun for the purpose of hunting. They're all either for competition, self-defense, or collecting.

I'd rather have NO restrictions than the "reasonable" restrictions proposed by Roberto "Major Bob" D'Aubuisson style authoritarians like Daley, Clinton and Bloomberg.

I have more trust in any random gunshow attendee than in any of the above named.

PS - Since we're listing what we have, I've got an AR with two uppers and more twenty and thirty round magazines than I can remember.

 

[Dan from MI]

I rarely use the terms liberal and conservative anymore. My definition of liberal would be George Soros and his followers - an authoritarian politically correct Fascist who want "liberal" use of government power for his utopian paradise. My definition of conservative would be a limited government leader - closer to libertarianism.

I sometime use conservative, but usually clarify it as "1994 Conservative" as I consider myself a "1994 Republican". As far as liberal goes, I use the term leftists.

 

[MechAg94]

Dan, I agree with your definition. The liberal definition stated at the top of the page I would just call libertarian. I would call myself a Reagan conservative sometimes, but mainly I just think the primary litmus test for laws is minimal taxes, limited govt, and minimal govt interference in our lives. All the social conservative crap just seems like a bunch of Authoritarian Republicans making their voices heard. That is one problem with the internet, it is too easy to get caught up in labels and sometimes you have to sit back and think about what you are saying versus what readers perceive.

Most of the antis I run into just have a fear or distrust of firearms. Most of them realize they are in Texas and there are a lot of gun owners. In those cases, I think just getting them out to a range to show them that firearms can actually be a hobby that can be safely enjoyed and that guns are not going to jump out and bite them is the best thing.

A guy at work several years back was walking around with an Australian visitor. He asked several guys in the control room how many guns they owned. More than half included me had to stop count in our minds because we didn't know off the top of our heads. The guy was real surprised by that. It was pretty funny.

 

[MechAg94]

One other thing: My guns are not designed to kill people or hunt really (never been used for it), they are designed to punch tight groups of holes in paper at distance. Some punch holes more rapidly than others.

 

[Autolycus]

I would say that liberals feel just as excluded on a conservative forum. I cant stand to read about how liberals are just the evilest and hypocritical but conservatives are a bastion of fairness and truth.

There are many Republicans who are anti-gun just as there are many Democrats who are pro gun.

In the end it really is up to the individual and not the party.

 

[Molon Labe]

I prefer the terms "collectivist" or "Marxist" when referring to our political enemies.

 

[DogBonz]

Well here's your problem

as stated by a fellow THR'er.

You'd probably have had more success trying to teach cats to whistle than reasoning with leftist extremists

You were debating with a Leftist, not a liberal. We need to return the strict structure to the English language that allows us to call things what they are, and not deviate from definitions. Just like every time you call an AR15 an "assult rifle", you further the cause of these leftists.

 

[Diamondback6]

Y'all, most people tend to forget the political spectrum has two axes: "liberal/"conservative" and "statist"/"individualist". Our problem isn't "individualist liberals", it's ANYONE one the "statist" side, whether they're "liberal" or "conservative".

Because the "statists" are all about the STATE and ITS security first, and how many individuals suffer for it doesn't matter. Thus, the peasants must not have guns, and those pesky "individualists" must be sent off to the "reeducation camps".

Uggh. I WAS just about to eat dinner, but having to simulate the thought processes of a statist POS just killed my appetite.

 

[crunker]

I like the way people who have done no research on military firearms, why they're built the way they are, and why such features are so attractive to the general citizen, claim that WE are the ignorant ones.

It's also funny how they claim the Second Amendment is about sporting and hunting.

 

[Deanimator]

I like the way people who have done no research on military firearms, why they're built the way they are, and why such features are so attractive to the general citizen, claim that WE are the ignorant ones.

It's also funny how they claim the Second Amendment is about sporting and hunting.

Just as in Holocaust denial, the fundamental bases of anti-gunnery are dishonesty and ignorance.

I have NEVER met a hardcore anti-gunner who wasn't either ignorant of basic firearms concepts, a pathological liar, or BOTH.

 

[poor_richard]

You were debating with a Leftist, not a liberal. We need to return the strict structure to the English language that allows us to call things what they are, and not deviate from definitions. Just like every time you call an AR15 an "assult rifle", you further the cause of these leftists.

You are so right. I often times have to tell people that I just don't care to engage in their form of Orwellian Newspeak.

 

[gezzer]

When you roll in the muck with pigs expect it to STINK

 

[Nil]

I also happen to be a liberal and very pro-gun as actually do most of my friends. Perhaps not quite as much of me of course, but they definitely are not anti-gun. So as this thread has proven, please don't try to paint all of us with such a broad brush.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Three Years Ago . . .

. . . I was just plain not ready for a forum like this.

I could very easily have been that jerk that so many of you shake your head at, as you mutter, "just, wow."

Yup, I'm somewhat conservative in many of my views. And conservatives give me the hairy eyeball when they hear some of my other views.

I've been a LONG TIME believer in freedom, small .gov, stay the hell out of my business, tax elimination, and so on.

I "believed" in the bill-o-rights, too, or so I thought. I mean, how do you believe in something you don't even understand?

Guns were okay, but somehow most of the people I knew who had them creeped me out. I had real trouble understanding their motivation.

I was missing the innate corruption and corruptibility of government, individually, severally, and collectively, and how this affected their inclination to disarm the population.

I was missing the fact that "law enforcement" wasn't about protecting ME. I was missing that one of the side-effects of corrupt government is impotence in its ability to protect the nation. I was missing lots more.

My biggest barrier to getting involved was that I was ignorant and embarrassed to be ignorant.

It took a year of self-education and unrelenting stupid questions to get past my ignorance (and resulting anxieties) of the machinery. It took another year of practice, deliberately associating with shooters, and more research before I grasped the importance of the NRA, the importance of being individually armed, and the value of a place like this, where I can watch, listen, and learn while sticking my own opinions out for critique.

Seriously, I wonder if you folks grasp the true value of the service you provide.

I learn more, get exposed to more concepts and ideas, see more real community here, in this place that only exists in cyberspace, than I could if there were a 200-member club in town that met every Sunday for the whole day.

Without this place, I would, seriously, be lost in a conversation where I had to defend the 2nd Amendment.

Y'all make it possible for me to hold my own, and help others cross over.

Can't put a price on that.

 

[parmamoon]

"PILMAN first of all you are ignorant"

PILMAN first of all you are ignorant

BINGO!​

If your " friends " in the GOP cared so much about RKBA why haven't they done anything to secure them in their 6 years of total government domination? Their only real "accomplishment" was to let the sun set on the AWB, and that was more like inaction. Don't even get me started on who the BATFE answers to. The two SCOTUS appointees feel that "settled" law should remain so. Are you happy with the commerce clause interps.
Furthermore, you can't even begin to comprehend the precious rights you've lost thanks to the "Patriot Act" signed into law by the self proclaimed " Decider ".

So next time you decide to go shooting off your mouth to the enemy, perhaps you should consider that it may not be in the best interest of your real friends I.E. fellow gun owners for you to do the talking, lest they think we are all as ignorant as you.

 

[PILMAN]

Oh please, I've been running a room called "Gun Control Unconstitutional" on paltalk the past 3 nights now and have had a large attendence of pro gun owners. Some of them are from thefiringline and THR. We have had some good debates against the leftists and have even changed the opinions of a few of them. If anything, I think every new gun owner counts. It's not about "bragging" to piss people off, it's about educating folks and correcting the misinformation they are hearing on the media. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's certainly not going to do any more harm than good, afterall everything I have said to the antis on there are fact.

Now I get bashed for actually being active in gun politics?

YOUR WELCOME FOR THE HELP!

 

[Deanimator]

Oh please, I've been running a room called "Gun Control Unconstitutional" on paltalk the past 3 nights now and have had a large attendence of pro gun owners.

Pilman, I anwered your questions.

No comment?

 

[Dan from MI]

If your " friends " in the GOP cared so much about RKBA why haven't they done anything to secure them in their 6 years of total government domination?

It was the GOP which banned frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers in an attempt to ban guns by bankruptcy.

It was John Bolton who told the UN no deals in their global gun grab attempt.

It was the GOP which enacted shall issue in Michigan. About 2/3 of the Democrats voted against it - and this is a pro-gun state.

It was the GOP which stopped Ted Kennedy and 2/3 of the senate Democrats from banning ALL centerfire ammunition.

As far as total government domination - nope. Not unless there are 60 senators able to stop a fillibuster - and the jokers and RINOS McCain and Shays and Castle playing their games. And the McCain types are the exception to the rule - just like pro-gun Democrats - exception to the rule. The typical Democrat politician on the federal level is a Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy.

Now I'm not saying that my party is perfect. Far from it. Bush was a lesser of two evils as I'm more of a 1994 Republican who is unhappy with the current GOP. Bush is too much of a statist for my taste - but as statist as he is, he's nothing compared to the flat out Stalinist John Kerry.