Please dissect this

[blarby]

(insert anti-s usual message here. Guns/mags,etc- whateva)

Replied with :


Don't misunderstand me : I completely understand what you are saying.
I simply believe that you need something considerably more substantial than "My object makes you afraid" as a justification for taking it away from me.

"I" have done no wrong deserving of that.

If we follow that logic , we should be able to outlaw what you are saying- because believe me, it makes me VERY afraid. But we can't- because Thank Goodness- thats the first amendment, now isn't it ?

But fear not. If you succeed in whittling the second one away to slingshots and derringers- the first will follow in short order, believe me on that. For if you can whittle one amendment down, certainly we can whittle the rest- now cant we ?

Essentially this comes down to removing the ability for those who currently, or may in the immediate future- do great harm to others. Thats a dangerously tricky super-powers type problem of its own....but has to do with the individual, not the objects.

If we were to legislate away all objects that can and do "do" harm, we would live in a world of nerf. We do, and can, not. What we can do is prevent those people that meet an established and vetted criteria for potentially doing serious immediate harm to others and confine them until such state as they are no longer ready to do society harm- as we used to.

If you are of such threat that you should be denied the use of arms, as your intent in such would solely be to deprive others of their liberty.... perhaps you don't have the right to ANY liberties, now do you ? ...

Yes, it is a slippery slope- liberty always is. But, as our good ole father TJ used to say : "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

_____________


Ok, now if possible- please rip this one apart from every angle you can.

I'm still in the process of developing my "go-to" response message, and this is the best I've come up with. Yes, we could write a book on the subject, I know. In most conversations, you never get the chance.

Most impact/least words- dont sound like a whack job. Thats the #1 goal. #2 goal : Most of these points have a sub-text of leading down paths that are very easy to close in our favor, should you be stopped mid-explanation like we always are.

I very rarely have 1 on 1 gun conversations with anti's... They get overheard a ton- and it needs to be rationally broadly based topics that are relatable.

 

[Halal Pork]

Playing devil's advocate:

-Why do you need those guns? The only thing they're for is killing. They are designed only to murder human beings. They have no sporting purpose. When used as they're intended, people die indiscriminately.

---You respond with history, facts and figures, Constitution, whatever

-The First Amendment? The First Amendment doesn't mean you can say whatever you want. If you slander someone falsely you can be sued for libel/defamation. If you threaten the life of the President you can be imprisoned. If you yell "fire" in a theater you can be prosecuted. If you incite others to riot, you can be arrested. Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want. And the Second Amendment doesn't mean you can have an assault rifle with the huge clip or a tank fighty thingy either!

I could go on but that's a start.

 

[blarby]

Keep goin- thats a start.

For brevity, I'll take everything said here as playing devils advocate, unless specified otherwise.

Those bits actually lead down the path of personal action using those rights- if you look at it again... not banning certain words if used in conjuction, for instance...only when they are used by and against someone by a person.

 

[Halal Pork]

A gun will outlast your ownership. You may one day sell it, it could be stolen, you could die and it would end up who knows where. So guns are really a ticking time bomb that will eventually, given enough time, be used to harm someone by way of murder, accidental discharge, or suicide.

The founding fathers meant muskets when they referred to a right to keep and bear arms. They had no way to understand the destructive level of killing power that would become available with technological advances.

How would you feel about guns if one of your children found your firearm and accidentally shot himself or one of his friends or siblings?

What if you were just feeling depressed and you decided to hurt yourself?

What if you were really angry with your neighbor and there was a gun there and before you knew it you did something in a moment of rage? Also, road rage.

What if you found out you were going to be laid off and you'd lose your house and your pension and you had a gun and decided to go on a shooting spree at your office?

 

[blarby]

A gun will outlast your ownership. You may one day sell it, it could be stolen, you could die and it would end up who knows where. So guns are really a ticking time bomb that will eventually, given enough time, be used to harm someone by way of murder, accidental discharge, or suicide.Undoubetedly true, I keep them well. There are conditions upon my passing that these items would pass to my spouse, whose judgement I trust far beyond my own- and we are both of sound mind. This does not deviate significantly from you essentially being afraid, therefore I forfeit rights. The same could be said in regards to ANY OBJECT you currently own. That is not an excuse for me to take those items from you, is it ? Or is it....... Can I come by and check your place out ?

The founding fathers meant muskets when they referred to a right to keep and bear arms. They had no way to understand the destructive level of killing power that would become available with technological advances.It says nothing about muskets, nor any other particular type of arms- it must be conferred, as has by reason ( and courts...not to mention certain papers I keep hearing about......), that they understood weaponry would develop in that context.I would REALLY love to go at length on this one, most of my friends have already heard my discussion of the subject, and find it quite damning ( immediate laughter) when someone pulls this diversion.

How would you feel about guns if one of your children found your firearm and accidentally shot himself or one of his friends or siblings?I do not have children, so pound sand there. If I did, they would be taught correctly. This plays directly into transferring your fear of action/inaction onto my actions.

What if you were just feeling depressed and you decided to hurt yourself? In the unlikely event that were true, that would harm no-one but myself. I alone possess the ability to deprive myself of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- not you. Unless you intend to ban ropes, automobiles, and bridges- this is a fallacy. You really are a sad and disturbed fellow, are you OK in there ? Your projections of self are.....troubling.......

What if you were really angry with your neighbor and there was a gun there and before you knew it you did something in a moment of rage? Also, road rage.Again, projecting your fear of something you might do yourself with an object, does not make it true that I would do it. You really are an unstable fellow, indeed !Are you seeing the recurring theme yet ?

What if you found out you were going to be laid off and you'd lose your house and your pension and you had a gun and decided to go on a shooting spree at your office? Again, projecting your fear of something you might do yourself with an object, does not make it true that I would do it. I am beginning to think you have a very unstable world view my friend- do you need to see a professional ? You have some interesting first thoughts about confrontation- and as I stated originally, your thoughts and words ARE beginning to scare me.

Most of these are easy and simplistic projection deflections, and aren't very hard for someone with an ounce of reason to poke holes in. Not that our opponents have a lot of it, I grant you- but still.

Thanks for participating- please keep going. Anyone else wanna throw irons in the fire... I need the practice !

 

[Halal Pork]

A lot of what I hear is just based on a strong emotional reaction. It can be difficult to persuade people in this boat. I'll bring up to folks sometimes that recognizing a problem and resolving to do something about it is not, in and of itself, a solution. Opportunistic policy making based on emotional reaction seldom addresses a problem effectively and it almost always leads to unintended consequences, some of which are worse than the problem that we originally intended to fix.

Part of the problem you're going to face is that we tend to gravitate toward people who share our points of view. If the person you're debating gets enough resistance to feel uncomfortbale in their argument, they will likely say "you're wrong" or offer some insult or whatever before retreating back to their own lines where nothing they say will be challenged. On the other hand, on our side, we tend to do the same thing. I think one of the reasons you haven't gotten much in the way of response just yet is that a lot of us don't bother debating those who hold views on the other side either. Many people think it's just not worth it.

I wish you luck in being able to persuade some folks to consider another point of view.

 

[stubbicatt]

I have found that arguing law with antis (i.e. 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, etc.) is like arguing scripture with someone well versed in biblical passages. They can find something to back up anything they say.

Typically I will say something like, "I respect your decision to not defend yourself, for whatever reason you may have chosen. I do not agree that just because you have decided not to defend yourself that means I have to decide to give up the means to defend myself or my family."

 

[blarby]

Unfortunately, not engaging is an option we no longer have- once prompted.

We all have to fight- at every opportunity, and as masterfully as allowed by virtue of skill.

If you want to look weak, play meek. We can't afford that given the law of large numbers at play here. Perception matters. Truth rings bells. We all need big hammers that work- not look like revolutionary pundits frothing at the mouth- that angle just doesn't work.

You need solid, anecdotal and empiracal evidence, a small amount of wit, and the ability to verbally joust in earnest in such a matter that is not only truthful- but in a charimatic in dominating way actually presents arguments and reasoning that shapes and changes opinions in a positive way. It works. I've done it, and continue to do it on a regular basis. I'm just making sure I have the best ammo, so to speak.

The harder you hit me here, the harder I can hit there. Heaven forbid anyone tuning in actually takes some talking points- we need all the good tools we can get right now.

I'm not grabbing a soapbox, as we all know it gets brought to us enough- we don't need to go looking for them.

we tend to gravitate toward people who share our points of view

I live in a world that has just as many if not more Anti than Pro. As much as it may seem, I don't live on THR. I live in the real world- and this is pretty much coming up daily now. In addition, spreading the gospel never hurt anyone, even to the converted.......

is like arguing scripture with someone well versed in biblical passages.

Any day my friend- any day. I can do it on both sides, (although much like in this instance, I have a preferred position...but playing black often helps your end game ) and continue to do so for practice at every opportunity. I've never shied from that one- if ya get licked, read the book and do better next time.

Thats why I'm here, right now.

About the only difference is that here you can type and edit- you can't edit speech very easily. So having the material rote is particularly important.

 

[figment]

Note the state:

INSTRUCTIONS OF TOWN MEETING, PRESTON, CONNECTICUT
(November 26, 1787)
It is our ardent wish that an efficient government may be established over these states so constructed that the people may retain all liberties, privileges, and immunities usual and necessary for citizens of a free country and yet sufficient provision made for carrying into execution all the powers vested in government. We are willing to give up such share of our rights as to enable government to support, defend, preserve the rest. It is difficult to draw the line. All will agree that the people should retain so much power that if ever venality and corruption should prevail in our public councils and government should be perverted and not answer the end of the institution, viz., the well being of society and the good of the whole, in that case the people may resume their rights and put an end to the wantonness of power. In whatever government the people neglect to retain so much power in their hands as to be a check to their rulers, depravity and the love of power is so prevalent in the humane mind, even of the best of men, that tyranny and cruelty will inevitably take place."
CONNECTICUT COURANT
(HARTFORD)
(Unknown author, writing under the pseudonym
"the Republican")
In countries under arbitrary government, the people oppressed and dispirited neither possess arms nor know how to use them. Tyrants never feel secure until they have disarmed the people. They can rely upon nothing but standing armies of mercenary troops for the support of their power. But the people of this country have arms in their hands; they are not destitute of military knowledge; every citizen is required by law to be a soldier; we are marshaled into companies, regiments, and brigades for the defence of our country. This is a circumstance which increases the power and consequence of the people; and enables them to defend their rights and privileges against every invader.
January 7, 1788