• 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.

How do you guys counter anti-gunners?

Igotid said:
I had a couple beers last night so I can’t remember what thread I plucked this off but I always mention this:

I’ve had the “but AR15s can’t fight against our modern military” discussion a few times before.
Click to expand...
The info in that jpeg is not quite 100% accurate, but the point is dead on. The all-powerful Federal government (with nukes, etc.) WAS stopped dead in its tracks from doing a productive family harm by civilian men with guns. It was actually a beautiful moment in history. Armed citizens stopped the Federal government from doing a great injustice. Yes, it can happen.
 
My new mantra is to tell them "I demand Gun Tolerance NOW!"
 
Moses said to Pharaoh, “I leave to you the honor of setting the time for me to pray for you and your officials and your people that you and your houses may be rid of the frogs, except for those that remain in the Nile.”
 
Goliathan said:
Ask them which of the Bill of Rights their side considers individual rights, and which their side considers collective rights? Hint: there's only one considered collective right according to their "logic."
Click to expand...

This. I hear people argue the 2A was provision for a fledgling government to ensure people were equipped for war, i.e. a militia. So how are the other 9 amendments for the individuals' right/benefit and this one for the gov't?

Also note that the people had been demanding a bill of their individual rights to limit government power. Twelve were proposed and ten were ratified.
Demand for a Bill of Rights - Creating the United States | Exhibitions - Library of Congress
 
I think it depends on the situation. In a public environment where tensions are high and opinion not on your side.....forget it, no win situation! In a more controlled environment or online you can can have a decided advantage if you’re informed. I learned the hard way when I wasn’t so informed and got jumped on by someone who was. Or at least it appeared they were. I looked like a dumbass and had to retreat. But I read read and read some more. I peeled back each layer of the persons talking points and I discovered a lot of hypocrisy and lies. In a short amount of time I was able to see the game plan that most liberals lay out. It’s a cut and paste statistical mentality for the most part and very easy to disprove. The big thing you have to remember is when you dry f*** these idiots with logic they back down but not out. They will move away from you and just go pick on someone less informed. Classic bully mentality. But don’t worry. Your idea is not to convince them. They are a lost cause. You are theoretically trying to reach a more sensible person who is on the fence. The undecideds who aren’t quite sure what the answer is and might even be leaning more in the wrong direction. The person who sits back quietly and says nothing but hears everything. Through intelligent informed conversation you are looking to reach those people. The moral of the story, if you decide to engage people make sure you did your homework. All great fighters train before every battle.
 
How do I counter them? With facts. But that still doesn't work a lot of times because they're usually suffering from headrectumitis. For the money shot, if they have kids I tell them i feel bad for their kids that their parents don't love them enough to protect them in the most efficient way possible. This usually leads to tantrums though lol
 
A Brief History of Repressive Regimes and Their Gun Laws | José Niño

In sum, the Jewish populace was disarmed and had no way of defending itself against the increasingly militant Nazi political operatives.

But pro-gun advocates aren’t exempt from making mistakes in their analysis either.

Second Amendment supporters often attribute gun control’s passage exclusively to Adolf Hitler’s government. However, a more thorough review of history demonstrates that the preceding Weimar government was responsible for passing gun registration. Weimar officials rationalized the passage of gun control in the name of public order, for fear of Nazis and Communists coming to blows on the street.

Unbeknownst to the Weimar government, their gun control framework would later be exploited by the Nazis to disarm the Jews and subject them to one of the most horrific cases of genocide in human history.
-------------
It’s easy for anti-gun entities to identify gun owners and confiscate their firearms in the long-run when they have their information on the books. With the wrong political actors in power, yesterday's “common-sense” gun control could be tomorrow's vehicle for gun confiscation.
----------------------------
Gun control may not have a path dependency toward tyranny. However, gun confiscation is an egregious form of gun control that allows authoritarians to steamroll their subjects at will. The way gun confiscation enhances the consolidation of state power is undeniable. A disarmed populace is simply no match for a repressive apparatus that has a monopoly on the use of force.

Gun rights might not guarantee victory against tyrants, but being deprived of them all but guarantees submission.
The 10 Myths of Gun Control
f.jpg
 
Last edited:
I don’t really bother talking about guns with people who are already against them, solidly. I’ll happily chat with people who have no opinion yet or maybe drifting left - the kind who think you have a right to own a gun but are ok with some oversight. They can’t see the forest through the trees and I do my best to remind them how dangerous a vast forest can be.

I might be alone in this but I don’t think most “anti gun” people think every gun should be confiscated by .gov storm troopers. Most are genuine in that they believe a few additional restrictions could keep guns out of the wrong hands.

I have also met the washed in the blood kind that don’t think guns have any place in a civil society. They are not worth educating.
 
I saw a few years ago a discussion similar to this, where someone had the idea of business cards with talking points/facts on them. Maybe it was more for talking/dealing with politicians but I always like the idea of it. I’m usually at some kind of a social function and the beers are flowing and I struggle with cohesive facts and arguments and easily devolve to the mindset of, “oh, you are super ignorant and closed minded so why would I waste my energy on you when I have no chance of influencing you.”
 
Snora said:
Waste of time. You’ll convince someone else that they’re wrong about as quickly as you’ll accept that your interpretation is wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes i basically agree that you wont comvince them the peoblem with your argument is that logic reason and historicall evidence proves that our interpretation is correct so there is no way to convince us that we are wrong because we are not. I like the simpathy play that somoene below pointrd out about if you have never been subjected to riggors of the liscensing process your opinon doesnt matter because thats the type of angle that they like to play even though that will ultimately be useless except for a few select people you cannot in one argument convince someone what they have been led to believe their whole lives is wrong
 
swatgig said:
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.
Click to expand...

I couldn't help but notice that in that entire article the word "Heller" never appears. Thank goodness for the search feature on the browser. If you're going to write a post-Heller argument about the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, you have to deal directly with, and cite, the arguments made in Heller, else I'm just going to have wait until you catch up before I spend my valuable time reading what you have to say.
 
I think the best strategy to any dialogue is to, in general, just try and be a friendly, decent person on a daily basis. People tend to respond better to calm, rationale, well-mannered people who MAY have a point more than to an angry guy who is 100% correct.

I try to undercut the affect of the person disagreeing up until a threshold I determine to be too close to useless toxic back and forth. If I sense they engaged just to bash my views without an open mind, the conversation is over.....but you'd be surprised how open people are on the other side if they respect your character even before the convo.

Most people I work with are ultra liberal. Name the policy, 99% are about as far left as you can get. Still, while I don't initiate discussion, I make it known where I stand when asked and have no shame in my values. When it comes to guns, most who first find out my views are met with shock but I've managed to make many see it from our perspective after a good convo. Would it change how they vote? Maybe not, but at least the perspective is now in their head when discussing with someone else.

I have only encountered one person who is so radically left that even after hours of convos, I just realize that they think I am some morale hazard that they need to convince is wrong. I have stopped engaging with this person despite the weekly bait....it was entertaining at first but always ended up nowhere.

All of this experience is face to face. IMO online back and forth is just an utter waste of time. How many people's minds have you changed on FB? There's no need to maintain civility when the person isn't in front of you which makes it easier to dig your heels and not take the other person's view seriously. Things like FB and twitter are just cesspools of people craving for likes, not real dialogue.....the answer there is always ignore.
 
TheGreekFreak said:
I think the best strategy to any dialogue is to, in general, just try and be a friendly, decent person on a daily basis. People tend to respond better to calm, rationale, well-mannered people who MAY have a point more than to an angry guy who is 100% correct.

I try to undercut the affect of the person disagreeing up until a threshold I determine to be too close to useless toxic back and forth. If I sense they engaged just to bash my views without an open mind, the conversation is over.....but you'd be surprised how open people are on the other side if they respect your character even before the convo.

Most people I work with are ultra liberal. Name the policy, 99% are about as far left as you can get. Still, while I don't initiate discussion, I make it known where I stand when asked and have no shame in my values. When it comes to guns, most who first find out my views are met with shock but I've managed to make many see it from our perspective after a good convo. Would it change how they vote? Maybe not, but at least the perspective is now in their head when discussing with someone else.

I have only encountered one person who is so radically left that even after hours of convos, I just realize that they think I am some morale hazard that they need to convince is wrong. I have stopped engaging with this person despite the weekly bait....it was entertaining at first but always ended up nowhere.

All of this experience is face to face. IMO online back and forth is just an utter waste of time. How many people's minds have you changed on FB? There's no need to maintain civility when the person isn't in front of you which makes it easier to dig your heels and not take the other person's view seriously. Things like FB and twitter are just cesspools of people craving for likes, not real dialogue.....the answer there is always ignore.
Click to expand...

After I have read your post I wanted to remind OP that here, in People's Republic of Massachusetts, we are already in the underground, so any real public discussions with moonbats may result in OP losing his job, reputation or he may be exposing himself to red flag hunters. It would be like talking to Soviet KGB about freedom in the USA, goons will listen carefully, but OP may not like the consequences of such a foolish undertaking.
 
Only my wife and a handful of other close friends and family know that I have guns. Those people know not to tell others, including their physicians if that question ever comes up.
 
10thSFFD said:
After I have read your post I wanted to remind OP that here, in People's Republic of Massachusetts, we are already in the underground, so any real public discussions with moonbats may result in OP losing his job, reputation or he may be exposing himself to red flag hunters. It would be like talking to Soviet KGB about freedom in the USA, goons will listen carefully, but OP may not like the consequences of such a foolish undertaking.
Click to expand...

I appreciate where you're coming from, I suspect it's well intentioned and from a place of concern for the OP's own good.

Given that we luckily aren't in the Soviet Union, I just can't see myself living like that. I'm not a hardcore conservative but hold certain values and beliefs that fall on the conservative side. Still, I went to high school in a super liberal MA town, attended a typical liberal university (with everything that comes with it on campus), and work in a very left leaning workplace. There was a time when I played the right face and was, at best, timid to voice an opposing viewpoint for the sake of avoiding potential awkwardness.....looking back, I was a coward without even knowing it.

There's a way to respectfully stand for your values as a minority view while maintaining respect, even in the workplace. I now expect everyone to respect my views that they disagree with just as I respect there's. As the general minority viewpoint on everything from guns to taxes, I choose to not engage anyone on these topics as I know they have views on the complete opposite end of the spectrum than me......but if ever asked for my perspective or if its an appropriate time to discuss an issue, you bet I'm gonna be honest about what I believe.

Some appreciate the honesty, others liked me better when they were ignorant to who I really am. I still treat everyone with a smile and the same friendly demeanor, I could care less if they're mortified that I, God forbid, have some conservative views lol. I would treat people on the right that I disagree with the same exact way.

Don't be cowards. If you can't work in a place where you can be yourself and not have to lie about your values, you should find another place to work. The only way to show people that have never heard the other side that differing opinions are out there is to respectfully voice them when appropriate......or else we continue to live in the shadows.

With that said, don't go to work like its a damn Pro2A parade, say TheGreekFreak told me to let you MFers know whats up, wooooo......and expect people to not think you're crazy lol
 
Al-Jim19 said:
I don’t really bother talking about guns with people who are already against them, solidly. I’ll happily chat with people who have no opinion yet or maybe drifting left - the kind who think you have a right to own a gun but are ok with some oversight. They can’t see the forest through the trees and I do my best to remind them how dangerous a vast forest can be.

I might be alone in this but I don’t think most “anti gun” people think every gun should be confiscated by .gov storm troopers. Most are genuine in that they believe a few additional restrictions could keep guns out of the wrong hands.

I have also met the washed in the blood kind that don’t think guns have any place in a civil society. They are not worth educating.
Click to expand...

When I encounter the civilized society thing , my counter is " Do you watch the news ? " We don't live in a civilized society.
In a civilized society, guys with 38 prior convictions for violent crimes aren't out on the street murdering pretty little collage students with their whole life ahead of them.
 
10thSFFD said:
A Brief History of Repressive Regimes and Their Gun Laws | José Niño

In sum, the Jewish populace was disarmed and had no way of defending itself against the increasingly militant Nazi political operatives.

But pro-gun advocates aren’t exempt from making mistakes in their analysis either.

Second Amendment supporters often attribute gun control’s passage exclusively to Adolf Hitler’s government. However, a more thorough review of history demonstrates that the preceding Weimar government was responsible for passing gun registration. Weimar officials rationalized the passage of gun control in the name of public order, for fear of Nazis and Communists coming to blows on the street.

Unbeknownst to the Weimar government, their gun control framework would later be exploited by the Nazis to disarm the Jews and subject them to one of the most horrific cases of genocide in human history.
-------------
It’s easy for anti-gun entities to identify gun owners and confiscate their firearms in the long-run when they have their information on the books. With the wrong political actors in power, yesterday's “common-sense” gun control could be tomorrow's vehicle for gun confiscation.
----------------------------
Gun control may not have a path dependency toward tyranny. However, gun confiscation is an egregious form of gun control that allows authoritarians to steamroll their subjects at will. The way gun confiscation enhances the consolidation of state power is undeniable. A disarmed populace is simply no match for a repressive apparatus that has a monopoly on the use of force.

Gun rights might not guarantee victory against tyrants, but being deprived of them all but guarantees submission.
The 10 Myths of Gun Control
View attachment 300429
Click to expand...

You make the point I wanted to make. In no subtle way, gun control framework allowed the third reich to become what it was.

"Blows in the street" with armed persons may have prevented the government which formed after the beer hall pitch.

Without the loss of the ability to defend themselves, some key players in the early rise of the Nazi party may not have had reason to bring their power to the table Hitler was creating.

There is a similar but more complicated story to tell about Japan. Key points include the 400 year isolation broken by a US battleship in their harbor. Stoping them by nukes. And then the business push into the states in the late 70's early 80's.

The core message is the same. Removing the ability for a people to defend themselves has been tried in history many many times. History shows no known case where that act has been successful.

I'm not sure what the eff people are thinking. Just because we have cell phones and interwebs and porn now doesn't mean we have magically evolved enough in a generation for the five thousand years of history to not be relevant.
 
Roadglide said:
I think it depends on the situation. In a public environment where tensions are high and opinion not on your side.....forget it, no win situation! In a more controlled environment or online you can can have a decided advantage if you’re informed. I learned the hard way when I wasn’t so informed and got jumped on by someone who was. Or at least it appeared they were. I looked like a dumbass and had to retreat. But I read read and read some more. I peeled back each layer of the persons talking points and I discovered a lot of hypocrisy and lies. In a short amount of time I was able to see the game plan that most liberals lay out. It’s a cut and paste statistical mentality for the most part and very easy to disprove. The big thing you have to remember is when you dry f*** these idiots with logic they back down but not out. They will move away from you and just go pick on someone less informed. Classic bully mentality. But don’t worry. Your idea is not to convince them. They are a lost cause. You are theoretically trying to reach a more sensible person who is on the fence. The undecideds who aren’t quite sure what the answer is and might even be leaning more in the wrong direction. The person who sits back quietly and says nothing but hears everything. Through intelligent informed conversation you are looking to reach those people. The moral of the story, if you decide to engage people make sure you did your homework. All great fighters train before every battle.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%
This is the reason to have the conversation with the anti, and why you need to know your stuff.
Its not the anti you are trying to convince, its the person on the fence listening to the discussion.
 
TheGreekFreak said:
Don't be cowards. If you can't work in a place where you can be yourself and not have to lie about your values, you should find another place to work. The only way to show people that have never heard the other side that differing opinions are out there is to respectfully voice them when appropriate......or else we continue to live in the shadows.
Click to expand...

I have been living in the shadows all my life. Not because I was a coward but because I had to survive. I think I have mentioned it here a lot: Heroes and sheep die fast. We all have choices, we all may select to become heroes, but do not expect to live long after such a choice. I had to live long, that was my priority, because people still depended on me. The world I was delivered into very clearly stated what is not allowed and what can immediately destroy your life. It took me few decades to get out of such configuration and, again, I ended up in the refugee camp with muslims who were fighting the entire world, not just Soviets. Well, hero ambitions would survive there for about 2 seconds. When I finally got out of there I thought I have reached the real America and I was happy for few decades......Then, commies showed up over here, and now they want to change all values, everything we have lived for, into confusing and always guilty hell. Notice that every evil starts with the registration. Once you are registered and fingerprinted you are no longer a hero, you are a sheep.

In 1990's some former communist countries opened their secret police archives. Citizens were suddenly able go there and read what was collected by police about them. People were shocked because what they have found out was not expected at all! They discovered that information about them was mostly delivered to police without any pressure by their friends, relatives, and co-workers. Why did they do it, you may ask. They did not do it because they did not like you, they did it to show authorities that they are not the one to worry about.....They did get what is expected of them and they have had no other means to show their servility to the regime than to report on somebody who may be different.....Think about it! You, the one who was reported to authorities, had no idea what was going on. You had a good time with them, you trusted them and you shared your opinions with them. They continued reporting on you and police was only collecting and archiving. No police touched you, nobody informed you about your "deeds against the regime". But, when time has come for your promotion at work, you were not promoted, somebody else got it, then your children failed entrance exam to universities and had to go and grab a shovel,......You had no clue why this was happening to you.......Nobody talked to you because you were labeled as a potential problem and you were designated to live in the underground where you can be watched and periodically checked. People wasted their entire lives trying to work harder to change their unfortunate position in the society, many of them died while trying to change their status. People thought they are guilty of being lazy, while in reality everyone around them kept reporting. Thus Average Joe had a fat book written about his sorry life by his community and has died not knowing that the community retired him into shadows long time ago! He was not an enemy, he was not a hero, he became the one who was not allowed to participate. That was about it. He has died and never knew why he was not promoted, why his children never got into university, why his raise was only 5%........

You may say that this would never happen in America......And you would be wrong, unfortunately. You are already in the shadow together with me, brother!

Massachusetts commies decided to lead the nation into a better communism. They do not want a gun control! They want you not to have guns. That is the first step of every successful revolution, people without guns. Once we have no guns they will ask for property and "sharing with the less fortunate". You are licensed and your guns are registered so they will know where to go first. Now they need to impose "red flag laws". In case you do not know what those will be all about just reread the paragraph above.
 
Last edited:
hminsky said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have been successful with a small number of anti’s who believe anyone can do a walk-in gun buy. People are usually surprised at how complicated the process is, and many don’t like the idea of their local Cleo having power over their decision making when they have no record.

PaulR said:
take them to the range.
Click to expand...

Yes! I like to start them off with a 22 pistol with a target at 30 feet. Most people have difficulty hitting the target with their first time use of a hand gun. After pistols I move to semi automatic rifles like the 1022 or the Glenfield Model 60. Both these rifles have scopes so hitting the target is much easier.

Then I show them a 223 round which I compare to the 22lr they’ve been shooting. I call it a 22 on steroids. If things are going well I ask them them if they’d like to shoot the larger round. If yes out comes the “dreaded” AR 15, but unless they recognize it I only tell them it’s just another semi auto rifle except this one has a red dot on it.

In my experience with this process most people have fun and are open to a discussion about guns and gun control.
It also helps that others at the range are polite and helpful, which does not match their idea of gun owner.

citoriguy said:
Only my wife and a handful of other close friends and family know that I have guns. Those people know not to tell others, including their physicians if that question ever comes up.
Click to expand...

This idea becomes more important with the arrival of red flag orders and the increasing use of swatting.
 
Agnotology said:
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
Click to expand...

I'd tell them to go argue with a f'in dictionary

militia
  • n.
    An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
  • n.
    A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
  • n.
    The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
 

Similar threads

Can you guys tell me what this is?
Replies
7
Views
468
LittleCalm
L
Cool one for you hk guys
Replies
13
Views
480
GeorgeMason
GeorgeMason
How would you rate KTP trade in pricing?
2
Replies
41
Views
738
PatMcD
PatMcD
You guys remeber when agency used to charge 3 grand to make your glock look stupid
Replies
22
Views
700
groundscrapers
G
How Democrats Think Suppressors Work
Replies
9
Views
368
Nightshift
Nightshift
Back
Top Bottom