• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Had a friendly argument with a friend this weekend...

Because I'm assuming that he has been fed the usual lefty lies and you can enlighten him. Otherwise you should tell him to screw off.

Picton said:
Well... but this friend, if he's arguing anti-2A, would probably say he, too, is doing you a favor by educating you. He'd want you to "understand" his point of view, as well. How far would he get? Honestly?

So if he's not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change his... then why lose a friendship over it? I'm assuming the OP wants this friendship to continue. The friend, in this case, might not see 2A as a founding principle (which I don't understand, but I've had friends try to get me to), so the conflict between it and friendship might not even arise in the eyes of his friend.
Click to expand...
 
If anyone want's to restrict my right to keep and bear arms, I'm right and they're wrong. There's nothing emotional about it. I calmly shoot down every argument for gun control and in doing so I assume my adversary agrees with the logic of my argument. (Then they get emotional and upset.)

There are a limited number of points I have to refute. "Why does anyone need a 30 round magazine?" "Don't you wish the second amendment had been worded differently?" "What about sensible restrictions?" "No one needs an AK/AR/ pump/bolt action/bolt action/flintlock/firearm." "No one needs full auto." "No one needs military style assault rifles/weapons." "No one needs guns in the home." "What if you lose your temper and you have a gun handy?" "What if someone loses their temper and there's a gun handy?" ""What about the likelihood of someone being shot when there are guns in the home?" No one with a gun has ever stopped a mass shooting." And the infamous, "Gun crime is high in MA/Chicago/Detroit because areas outside THOSE areas have lax gun laws."

There are more. I never really organized them. The point is, there are a limited number of them. Learn the answers and take emotion out of it. You're right, they're wrong. It's a card game and you always have better cards than they do.
 
seth72 said:
Friday, my friend told me he believes that the 2A only allows for "hunting muskets", but he'll go so far as to allow bolt action rifles that are not magazine fed. I told him that the 2A exists so that if he tries try to take away my AR, I am obligated to, and have the right to shoot him on the spot. I'm not sure he got the point. But, I didn't feel like debating that that moment.
Click to expand...

That's when you take your rifle and swing it at his balls.
 
edhead35 said:
He is in a different point in his transformation. Endanger HIS gun and his mind will change.
Click to expand...

This is exactly it. Once it affects them it's a whole different story. I was on another website posting about Larue Tactical standing up for us by boycotting Nanny State LE and this one guy was up in arms over it. I mean really over the top vocal. Turns out he's Nanny State LE...
 
The individual is the ultimate sovereign.

A bunch of people with government issued uniforms don't tell other people what to do in a free society.
 
I am about as liberal a gun owner can be. I absolutely love the hobby of shooting but never believe that I will be in a situation that a gun will be the difference between life and death. My guns reside in a safe, I rarely conceal carry, I don't hunt, and the majority of my family, neighbors, friends don't even realize I own any firearms so I am definitely not a guns blazing, 2A quoting, self militia. With that being said, I absolutely under no circumstance am willing to freely give up any of my constitutional rights for no one, no matter what kind of liberal pansy a$$ excuse they have accepted in their sheepish minds! I feel that if you find it necessary to have a fully outfitted AR with all the trimmings and you believe that you need it for whatever reason then god bless the constitution for granting you the right to. As long as you follow the laws, respect the responsibilities that owning a firearm comes with and don't do anything that makes it harder for me to own my firearms then have fun!
I am tired of all the gun control, anti gun, Newtown fanatics (starting with Dictator Obama) trying to restrict my rights and turn me into an OUTLAW in my community because I believe in the second amendment and my/your right to bear arms. I fear that this is all building up to something that is going to come to a head and negatively impact our hobby, protection, way of life…
 
Jason Flare said:
If anyone want's to restrict my right to keep and bear arms, I'm right and they're wrong. There's nothing emotional about it. I calmly shoot down every argument for gun control and in doing so I assume my adversary agrees with the logic of my argument. (Then they get emotional and upset.)

There are a limited number of points I have to refute. "Why does anyone need a 30 round magazine?" "Don't you wish the second amendment had been worded differently?" "What about sensible restrictions?" "No one needs an AK/AR/ pump/bolt action/bolt action/flintlock/firearm." "No one needs full auto." "No one needs military style assault rifles/weapons." "No one needs guns in the home." "What if you lose your temper and you have a gun handy?" "What if someone loses their temper and there's a gun handy?" ""What about the likelihood of someone being shot when there are guns in the home?" No one with a gun has ever stopped a mass shooting." And the infamous, "Gun crime is high in MA/Chicago/Detroit because areas outside THOSE areas have lax gun laws."

There are more. I never really organized them. The point is, there are a limited number of them. Learn the answers and take emotion out of it. You're right, they're wrong. It's a card game and you always have better cards than they do.
Click to expand...

A few of my retorts to "nobody needs":

1. These are 'rights' not 'needs'.
2. Who says that you don't 'need' 30-round magazines? Isn't that why we have due process of law?
3. If nobody needs 30-round magazines, why would the police and military voluntarily put themselves at a disadvantage?
3B. If military and police are exempt from this order, what qualifies them to be so?
4. Where in the Constitution does it say "needs" as it pertains to 2A?
5. So if we don't "need" 30-round magazines, what's an appropriate capacity? Why?
6. If we don't "need" 2A protections, why don't we get rid of all the other constitutionally guaranteed rights? We don't "need" freedom of speech, right?

There are others, but those are my favs.
 
these are some great responses. and i completely hear every one of you. ive been reading alot on here every day and i understand the frustration. it was difficult to argue with this particular individual because he owns a firearm, and his house contains many. i suppose i had the thought of how much hypocrisy i was hearing from this person.

he owns a gun, is telling me he believes in gun rights and that he is on my side, but kept inserting all of these negative/crooked comments in the midst. here i am trying to make my points and getting all fired up over it, and hes yelling back at me 'IM ON YOUR SIDE' and all i can think is, no your not. if he truly believed in protecting his right to bear arms, there would be no 'wiggle room' for government interference.
 
mikem317 said:
A few of my retorts to "nobody needs":

1. These are 'rights' not 'needs'.
2. Who says that you don't 'need' 30-round magazines? Isn't that why we have due process of law?
3. If nobody needs 30-round magazines, why would the police and military voluntarily put themselves at a disadvantage?
3B. If military and police are exempt from this order, what qualifies them to be so?
4. Where in the Constitution does it say "needs" as it pertains to 2A?
5. So if we don't "need" 30-round magazines, what's an appropriate capacity? Why?
6. If we don't "need" 2A protections, why don't we get rid of all the other constitutionally guaranteed rights? We don't "need" freedom of speech, right?

There are others, but those are my favs.
Click to expand...

Great answers.
I had a guy say to me once, "Don't you wish the second amendment had been worded differently?"
I answered, "I wouldn't change a word."
It was a question he had probably used to get people to admit the language of 2A was debatable. My answer really threw him back on his heels.

If someone insists they want gun control I sometimes tell them, "I have carried guns legally for almost 50 years and have not broken the law. Who are these humans you believe I should give my guns to who are more worthy to own them, and can you guarantee that they will not use them against me?"
 
Please! Anyone who has friends that are ill-informed, or ignorant of the gravity of these infringements, tell them about this forum. They don't have to join, they don't have to post, just ask them to read. Perhaps, after a time, they will come to realize how precariously fragile their gun ownership has become. Maybe then, they will understand!
 
Got into an argument with a guy I work with a few weeks ago. This is someone I’ve been talking to about this subject since I was applying for my LTC and who has told me about all his guns, scopes, wish list, etc. He only has an FID and looked at me funny when I told him I was applying for an LTC; I guess that should had tipped me off.

Anyways, I made a random comment in the kitchen about how something would soon be “banned for our safety” and he throws in “Well I agree with the NRA”. At this point I was a little confused about what the NRA had to do with anything so I asked him; to which he replies

“Well nobody needs these assault weapons and 20, 30, or 60 round clips (yes, clips)”

Again I ask him to elaborate on his explanation of assault weapons after correcting his terminology.

“Come on you know what I’m talking about. Those guns that look like the military ones and that shoot 1,000/2,000 rounds a minute”

Now this went on for a while with him telling me how easy it is to convert an AR-15 to a machine gun and so on. Seemed no matter how much I tried to educate him, he wasn’t having it. I realized how long we had been arguing and that his ass needed to get back to work and I really needed to get some orders in (plus was about to start insulting his intelligence) so I ended with let’s just agree to disagree. He didn’t seem to understand that I really did not agree with him, so he laughed and walked away. Needless to say I avoid that subject with him as much as possible now. I’m thankful it wasn’t a good friend, just a wakeup call of who can have this outlook really.
 
I've found that the most effective way to end the conversation with my liberal female friends is to ask them what reasonable restrictions they are willing to have imposed upon their reproductive rights. The supreme court may have confirmed a woman's right to choose, but said nothing about not being able to reasonable limits upon it.
For the guys, its largely around licesning and purchase restrictions for booze and cars.
 
Reasonable restrictions imposed by the Government are like "Temporary Taxes or temp tax hikes". They are never going away and they will only get worse. The Government doesn't know how to give money or freedoms back once they have taken them away.

Simle as that
 
Some people are easily converted because they just don't know any better. They heard something was bad on the news, accepted it and moved on with their lives. Give them a little education, and if they take it great, if they don't try the next person. Some people are not easily converted because they do not concede they can be wrong on anything, and they are a waste of time. If it is because they are super educated on being anti gun or they dont know shit and are anti gun, if their pride doesn't allow them to concede a point, move on.

Friends and family are more important than anything in life, but it doesn't mean I am not going to try and educate them, and they educate me. A stranger isnt going to give a damn what I have to say, but a friend can be convinced if they respect you, or at least try to see your side of the argument. Exception to the rules of course exist. I have a very close friend, female, married to a female. My friend is not anti gun, but not pro either. Likes to shoot, brother and father hunts. Her wife, big commie. I am shoveling shit into the wind arguing with her. She is a party line, everything the democrats say is right, angry lesbian. We got her to shoot a gun, but will not even consider her wife, my friend getting a license and getting a free .410 from her father. I choose not to debate this stuff with her, to preserve my relationship with someone very important to me, but again, exception to the rule, someone who is not reachable is not worth it.
 
Realtor MA said:
I couldn't disagree more with this post. If you can't argue and discuss things with your friends then you really don't have friends. Furthermore if you care about them then you would want them to understand your point of view and ideally you would want them to see that what you are saying makes sense. And if those friends turn out to be the type that would trample your rights then you had better look long and hard at that friendship.
So you're basically saying that a friendship is more important than the principles upon which this country was founded.
Click to expand...

+1
 
drgrant said:
People like that talk shit all the time until they've tasted the pointy end of the spear. They don't get that the "as long as he can still own a firearm" thing can change overnight, and it will only get that way with a**h***s like him rubber stamping all the bullshit the gov does.

-Mike
Click to expand...
Right you are and thats where all the trouble starts.Some only care what matters to themselves and what there"line in the sand is". By then it is far too late as their liberty is gone by their own undoing.
 
So I guess I don't even understand the whole machine gun argument either, why did we give in on that one to begin with. The way I read the second amendment is like this: Because having an army is needed to make the free nation survive and because that army, in the wrong hands, can do terrible thing, the people need to be unrestricted in what they can posses in order to combat that army and government. Seems pretty simple to me.
 
SteelShooter said:
So I guess I don't even understand the whole machine gun argument either, why did we give in on that one to begin with. The way I read the second amendment is like this: Because having an army is needed to make the free nation survive and because that army, in the wrong hands, can do terrible thing, the people need to be unrestricted in what they can posses in order to combat that army and government. Seems pretty simple to me.
Click to expand...

The "Sandy Hook" that prompted GCA34/NFA was the Valentine's Day Massacre, committed with machine guns and shotguns.
 
I am so tired of hearing people say things like the constitution is 200+ years old and the writers obviously couldn't have imagined the types of guns there are today and on and on, etc...

My response:

Maybe you are right. But if you are right about that then let's consider Freedom of Speech. There is no way the writer's of the 1st amendment could imagine the internet, 24/7 television on hundreds of channels, the mass production of newspapers, books, etc. They couldn't even have imagined radio! I guess that means we should eliminate those things too. And all those religions which have come about in the last 150 years?!
 
drgrant said:
Then next time bring him only 5 or 10 round mags and leave the others at home. Tell him that someone who is OK with the others being banned doesn't deserve to be able to touch them. "Yes, of course, they suck. Well you told me last week you had no problem with them being banned, so I figured you'd like these shitty mags just fine." Maybe he'll get the drift then.

-Mike
Click to expand...

Pin the 5 rounder to accept 1 round and give him a box full. Sit back and drink your lemonade.
 
SteelShooter said:
So I guess I don't even understand the whole machine gun argument either, why did we give in on that one to begin with. The way I read the second amendment is like this: Because having an army is needed to make the free nation survive and because that army, in the wrong hands, can do terrible thing, the people need to be unrestricted in what they can posses in order to combat that army and government. Seems pretty simple to me.
Click to expand...

Right. If the state has fully-automatic weapons, then the people need fully-automatic weapons. Instead, we're largely left with semi-automatic equivalents, which are obviously inferior in capability, and now the private ownership of these are being threatened.

I'll rhetorically ask, "How can the citizenry go toe-to-toe against a tyrants armed forces with bolt-action rifles?" Of course, we know the answer to that one. They can't. Which is exactly the point.
 
I had the "reasonable restrictions" WRT magazine capacity thrown up to me at a Basic Pistol class by a student during lunch.

"Why would anyone need more than 10 rounds?"

"What makes the 11th round worse?"

We talked a bit, and I handed them a Radom mag (8 rounds) and then a Smith mag (15 rounds) and then said, "What's the real difference?"

No answer.....
 
MisterHappy said:
I had the "reasonable restrictions" WRT magazine capacity thrown up to me at a Basic Pistol class by a student during lunch.
Click to expand...

Classic misdirection. Adam Lanza could have walked into that school with not much more than a goddamned BLUNDERBUSS and still wreaked the same havoc. Why? Because NOBODY there was in a position to stop him.

Frankly, I've had it with the horse hockey about this. The failure was clearly on the part of the "custodians" of those children, who failed in their duty to protect. And I am not willing to let them off the hook.
 

Similar threads

Memphis Officer Joseph McKinney was killed this morning in a shootout with a man who had been released without bail ... after being caught with a MG
Replies
19
Views
470
MaverickNH
MaverickNH
Need a good 2A attorney for a friend
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
3K
Len-2A Training
Len-2A Training
A California sheriff's deputy had a double-life with an outlaw motorcycle gang, police say
Replies
4
Views
255
Bt74
Bt74
WaPo: I’m Glad I had a Gun
2
Replies
36
Views
963
namedpipes
namedpipes
Is this a new term? Zombie guns.
Replies
9
Views
350
hminsky
H
Back
Top Bottom