How do you guys counter anti-gunners?

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 13, 2016
Messages
158
Likes
103

DitchDigger

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
1,946
Likes
987
Location
South Shore
Ask “ Do you own a firearm, have you ever trained with and shot a firearm,do you know what is involved to get a license to be able to own and carry or transport a firearm, Have you ever been fingerprinted ?
If none of the above you have no basis for a valid opinion
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
10,625
Likes
5,998
Location
Right behind you.
This popped up in my google feed. How do you convince people they are off their rocker and completely incorrect in their interpretation? This article is mostly quoting people who already align with their interpretations in letters and books, rather than looking at letters by the people who actually wrote the document.

We Can't Ignore the "Militia" Clause of the Second Amendment | | Tenth Amendment Center
2 separate clauses discussing 2 separate but related rights. The militia clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is saying that for a state to be secure in it's freedom from tyranny, a well regulated militia (i.e. a citizen militia not controlled by the gov't that is well stocked and well trained" is a fundamental right of the people to form. The second clause is saying that the people need unfettered access to military arms in order to form such a militia. Nowhere does it say that arms can only be used for militia purposes.


Each clause is guaranteeing a separate but related right. The people have a right to arms AND have the right to use those arms to form a militia independent from the government to ensure the people can remain free from tyranny should the gov't take such a turn.


It's really not confusing language, it's just that the average adult American today is about as well educated as a 10 year old in colonial times.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
8,749
Likes
5,847
It depends on how they approach the subject. If there's even a hint of rational thought and curiosity, I'll have a serious discussion with them. On the other hand, if they come out swinging with something like "the 2A needs to be repealed" then I tell them to F off and I walk away. I once went on a date with a girl who suddenly out of the blue said "the 2A needs to go" - "uh-huh, check please!"
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
10,625
Likes
5,998
Location
Right behind you.
Ask “ Do you own a firearm, have you ever trained with and shot a firearm,do you know what is involved to get a license to be able to own and carry or transport a firearm, Have you ever been fingerprinted ?
If none of the above you have no basis for a valid opinion
I don't like this argument because it's pretty much identical to the feminazis saying if you don't have a uterus you can't opine on aborsh. And most relatively quick thinking liberals would probably pick up on that and derail the discussion about guns to aborsh, killing the argument by changing topics and calling you a misogynist or hitler or whatever.
 

hminsky

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
7,565
Likes
3,215
I don't like this argument because it's pretty much identical to the feminazis saying if you don't have a uterus you can't opine on aborsh. And most relatively quick thinking liberals would probably pick up on that and derail the discussion about guns to aborsh, killing the argument by changing topics and calling you a misogynist or hitler or whatever.
On the other hand, a lot of people who are casually anti-2A, if you ask them "have you ever tried to buy a gun in MA", and then walk them through the steps needed, it usually shuts them up about needing more laws, because they have no idea how much of gauntlet is involved already. They usually think you can buy one at Walmart or at a "gun show", no questions asked. Especially when you tell them it's still up the the local police chief whether you get one at all, the wheels start turning a little in their minds, because there's nothing quite so attractive as something you are forbidden to have by some arbitrary authority, even if you didn't want it in the first place.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
10,625
Likes
5,998
Location
Right behind you.
On the other hand, a lot of people who are casually anti-2A, if you ask them "have you ever tried to buy a gun in MA", and then walk them through the steps needed, it usually shuts them up about needing more laws, because they have no idea how much of gauntlet is involved already. They usually think you can buy one at Walmart or at a "gun show", no questions asked.
yeah I agree...educating them on what the process already is like is beneficial....I'd just trim the "you have no right to opine" part.
 

EJFudd

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,903
Likes
1,596
Location
Behind Enemy Lines
The Supreme Court ruled in Heller that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and bears no relation to militia. They can whine all they want. The Supreme Court already ruled that they are wrong.
The opinion piece's whole argument is that the founding father's 1790's concept of "militia" is outdated and obsolete in our modern times with our all-powerful Federal military being too difficult to ever defeat... therefore, the second point (i.e., "the right to keep and bear arms") in the 2nd Amendment must be outdated and obsolete as well. [thinking]

Ahhhh... no. [mg] Selective sourcing can only go so far. Different research yields a very different result. And much of the author's work is ridiculously self-contradictory. In other words, it was probably a really fun mental exercise to write that, but the conclusion is dead wrong. [slap]
 

Cipher

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 7, 2019
Messages
662
Likes
1,062
Location
1000 miles from nowhere
Just tell them a militia presupposes that the people are already armed and militia as a term is interchangeable with the people. If they think this concept is "outdated" that's just their own conjecture. Nothing by itself becomes outdated "just cuz". Of course this presupposes these people are merely confused with good intentions. That might be true for some average Joe who isn't that sharp but most of these arguments are being spewed by vermin who do not care if they are wrong or right. Politics is not a science it is a battle of group interests.
 

BREWINZ

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Messages
728
Likes
521
Location
Central MA
It depends on the anti. If they are anti because it's tied to their political agenda, they can't be reasoned with. End of discussion. However, lots of people are anti due to ignorance and fear (thanks, CNN). Education can clear that up if they're willing have a conversation. Especially when they learn I'm not a card carrying Republican. Stereotypes play a huge part in their willingness to listen. I don't mind engaging with the latter and I often find that while they don't come out of it as pro 2A as I am, they aren't staunch antis anymore either. YMMV.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
60   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
71,474
Likes
33,321
Wobblies are a better investment of time vs antis. People that "know little " or don't know much about guns. Hard core, anti "generic talking points sheet" types are a complete waste of time. Some of them are even paid to play that part, don't forget...
 

fshalor

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Messages
3,383
Likes
2,082
Location
Portland, ME
Double tap?

No?

You can't talk sense to a true Anti; Nons, maybe with facts, and reason.
I'm getting fonder of the penis cut off to stop rape meme. Mostly because I seem to be mad this week.

It's on yesterday's page in the Funny thread.

Tell them they should cut off their junk to prevent rape. They will respond "I wouldn't do that bad thing you are referring to!!". Reply with "Exactly! Now stop trying to cut off my junk. "
 

10thSFFD

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
23,932
Likes
18,326
Location
Camp Deplorable in the Blue Swamp
Term militia is not unique to America. Militias were created and functioned all over Europe. They were never tied to an official military because in many cases the official military was on the side of the evil. One good example could be uprising in Slovakia in which militia was formed against the Slovakian Nazi regime and Germans who occupied the country. This uprising was driven by people who armed themselves and went into the mountains. During WWII. Yugoslavian militia was opposing Italians and Nazis as well as domestic fascists.
In order to form militia you need to have individuals with guns, otherwise you would be forming "dead men walking squads". That would be my argument. Imagine, that your own country is taken over and police and military is suddenly under the new "evil" leadership and you have no guns at all. What would you do?
Another excellent example would be destruction created by UN and international forces in former Yugoslavia in 90's. Over there UN forces created enclaves which were suppose to protect the innocent, those enclaves served as traps in which many unarmed and naive citizens were murdered, raped and brutally tortured. Again, people with weapons formed militia to protect their own communities.
If people give up their rights to weapons they will become easy victims of aggressors. Great example is Czechoslovakia in 1968 when it was invaded by 500,000 soldiers of the Warsaw Pact (mostly Soviets, but also East Germans, Polish and Hungarian forces). Czechoslovakian military stayed in their barracks and so was police. People had no weapons, because communists did not allowed them. So, the invasion was a success and Soviet regime took over the entire Czechoslovakia for 20 years.

I believe we need to get antis from their comfortable position that guns are bad for everybody. Well, citizens who are trained are a big value to any community in the case that such community is in danger.
 

doxdsgn

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
406
Likes
216
The Supreme Court says you are wrong. It's settled law. Now off you go you (pick one: moron, idiot, racist, putz, troll, jerk off.....)

Since you are not going to convert an "anti", irritate the hell out of them, won't be hard. Polite, logical discussions don't work, which, for them are safe. Need to adapt their tactics, it's time to make them afraid to open their pie hole to spew BS.
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
14,928
Likes
10,500
Location
North Shore
"Do you have any idea what an uneducated idiot you sound like to someone with actual knowledge on the subject ? "
"Just trying to save you future humiliation . "
 

Uzi2

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
6,654
Likes
9,013
Term militia is not unique to America. Militias were created and functioned all over Europe. They were never tied to an official military because in many cases the official military was on the side of the evil. One good example could be uprising in Slovakia in which militia was formed against the Slovakian Nazi regime and Germans who occupied the country. This uprising was driven by people who armed themselves and went into the mountains. During WWII. Yugoslavian militia was opposing Italians and Nazis as well as domestic fascists.
In order to form militia you need to have individuals with guns, otherwise you would be forming "dead men walking squads". That would be my argument. Imagine, that your own country is taken over and police and military is suddenly under the new "evil" leadership and you have no guns at all. What would you do?
Another excellent example would be destruction created by UN and international forces in former Yugoslavia in 90's. Over there UN forces created enclaves which were suppose to protect the innocent, those enclaves served as traps in which many unarmed and naive citizens were murdered, raped and brutally tortured. Again, people with weapons formed militia to protect their own communities.
If people give up their rights to weapons they will become easy victims of aggressors. Great example is Czechoslovakia in 1968 when it was invaded by 500,000 soldiers of the Warsaw Pact (mostly Soviets, but also East Germans, Polish and Hungarian forces). Czechoslovakian military stayed in their barracks and so was police. People had no weapons, because communists did not allowed them. So, the invasion was a success and Soviet regime took over the entire Czechoslovakia for 20 years.

I believe we need to get antis from their comfortable position that guns are bad for everybody. Well, citizens who are trained are a big value to any community in the case that such community is in danger.


That would be nice, but its not happening on my dime or my time.
 

Igotid

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
397
Likes
303
Location
an actual place
The opinion piece's whole argument is that the founding father's 1790's concept of "militia" is outdated and obsolete in our modern times with our all-powerful Federal military being too difficult to ever defeat... therefore, the second point (i.e., "the right to keep and bear arms") in the 2nd Amendment must be outdated and obsolete as well. [thinking]
I had a couple beers last night so I can’t remember what thread I plucked this off but I always mention this:

4D06B3B7-7517-427F-AA68-DB82D510F4F9.jpeg

I’ve had the “but AR15s can’t fight against our modern military” discussion a few times before.

This guy and his friends needed guns:

E6F443A2-CC02-4947-8FDF-D0D2BC2C0774.jpeg
 
Top Bottom