On Mass Pike today and saw a huge anti assault weapon sign

[spcantwell]

You won't convince them by soothing their fears with appeasement and soft-selling 2A as you are (and as the NRA tried to do for decades). It is a war of attrition that you will lose every time. You give an inch, they take a mile.

There are just a few things that actually work:
1. Unfortunately experiencing violent crime first hand (as a victim, I wouldn't wish this on anyone).
2. Put a gun in their hand and let them shoot.
3. Put them in a "peer group" of former antis. They like falling in line with peers. I say this somewhat sarcastically, but it is quite true. When they see someone they can identify with outside guns accepting the varying unpleasantness of guns, revolution, violence, etc... They come around really quickly.

The facts are on our side. History is on our side. So, you just have to break the bubble they have been living in and it opens the damn of firearms ignorance.

You won't get the same turn around just trying to soft pedal the realities of self defense and tyranny. Again, see NRA. Give it up.

So where does your method of screaming about overthrowing the goverment fall into those choises? Oh thats right, it doesnt. I am not 'soft selling' I am just trying to give them a chance to study the facts, as opposed to trying to scare them into agreeing with you... and we all know how well fear works to convice someone that you are right...

 

[flintoid]

and I am telling you (Cantwell) that you are far more the problem to 2A than either the antis or any of us. You represent the essential failure of the NRA and people to stand firm and speak plainly about what these rights mean and how they function to keep a peaceful and free society.

Your exact mindset and failed analysis/understanding of history is what brought us to attempted handgun bans in the 70's and, FOPA86 and the 94 AWB (along with MA law of course).

Far more so than the antis, it was the apathy of those trying to appease them that allowed these laws to pass. There aren't enough of them to vote it in, a lot of gun owners had to stand aside.

I am sorry, but I think I have a differnce in opinion (from most of you) about what the 2nd is supposed to mean. To me, it says that in order for state militas to be effective the general population needs to be familer with milita grade weapons... which when you think about it mean that we should be going the ?swedish? route and REQUIREING everyone to work with/keep REAL assault weapons (aka full auto with all the evil killy bells and wistles).

It may be me, but I dont think that it is really supposed to be about protection from 'our' gov so much as a more general ability to become instant milita if the need arrises. After all, its not like they where planning on a standing army at the time... or even a standing 'national gaurd' style unit.

This really spells it out very well. He doesn't think that civilians should be armed to take on a unruly government.

spcantwell- I'm sure someone has pointed this out in this thread already, but weren't the colonists equally armed as the government that they rebelled from? What if they weren't? Wouldn't we still be under British rule?


This is where you logic is a failure. Please sit down and think about it for a while. Please

 

[spcantwell]

My agenda is to ensure that this never happens again. The way to do that and keep things peaceful is to bind government sufficiently that we remain free and government is sufficiently intimidated at the prospect of curtailing this freedom that it does not try.

If thats your agenda you are doing a horrible job of it. You are doing nothing to help the 2nd and everything to hurt it.

 

[jasons]

This is where you logic is a failure. Please sit down and think about it for a while. Please

 

[n1bsbri]

spcantwell - your "problem" as such is you are clinging to one of the "collective rights" interpretations of the 2nd amendment. Here (from wikipedia) is your reading assignment to see how the collective right argument has been discredited.

The question of a collective rights versus an individual right was progressively resolved with the 2001 Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson, in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago. All of those rulings upheld the individual rights model when interpreting the Second Amendment. In Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right.[SUP][112][/SUP] Although the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such constructions were widely used elsewhere.[SUP][113][/SUP]

 

[spcantwell]

This is only your opinion. And it's actually, not "actauly." Government, not "goverment."

You are on a soap box, preaching to us about how moronic you personally think we are. He's telling you that you suck at spelling, because you actually do. Which is pretty moronic.

Spend more time debating than throwing stones. I am interested in your logic circles. If you think that the method of advocating the 2nd Amendment by defining it through the founding father's intent is poor, how do you suggest advocating it otherwise? By hunting birds?

again, I dont care about spelling, this is the freaking internet. As long as its close enough for you to understand it, I am happy.
secondly, again, I never used the term moronic or any variation of it, only you have done so. I also never said anything about your level of intelegence. I only question your reading ability.

 

[cekim]

So where does your method of screaming about overthrowing the goverment fall into those choises? Oh thats right, it doesnt. I am not 'soft selling' I am just trying to give them a chance to study the facts, as opposed to trying to scare them into agreeing with you... and we all know how well fear works to convice someone that you are right...

Not screaming, you just don't like that you being told you are wrong by everyone else in thread.

You are "soft selling" because you are trying to avoid offending them and touching on their fears of a tyrannical government being overthrown. You have said so repeatedly. My even mentioning it scares you enough that you think I am yelling when I am not.

The 3 options above didn't include explaining to them that 2A includes the need to protect against tyrannical government for the same reason that you refuse to accept it.

Much like you are doing here, antis will twist history and offer contorted "logic" to rationalize their fears of the very idea of their paternal government losing its hold on power.

A largely pointless exercise (as is this thread), so I focus on that which will work, but it doesn't change the truth and I won't avoid it if asked any more than I would avoid saying the earth was round or revolves around the sun rather than flat and orbited by the sun.

 

[Metalhead]

If thats your agenda you are doing a horrible job of it. You are doing nothing to help the 2nd and everything to hurt it.

Dude, with "friends" like you we don't need enemies. Appeasement and catering to the pussies of the world never leads to anything good. If the antis are scared and butthurt I could care less. We have our natural rights that are affirmed by the 2nd and by case ruling. Get a clue already.

 

[cekim]

If thats your agenda you are doing a horrible job of it. You are doing nothing to help the 2nd and everything to hurt it.

Yes, I understand you are an anti. I haven't convinced you with history or the truth and don't expect to. You need more of the previously mentioned 3 approaches. You will get it eventually I am sure (you are off to a good start).

My mistake was in thinking you weren't anti-gun. My sincere apologies.

 

[jasons]

 

[flintoid]

Yes, I understand you are an anti. I haven't convinced you with history or the truth and don't expect to. You need more of the previously mentioned 3 approaches. You will get it eventually I am sure.

My mistake was in thinking you weren't anti-gun. My sincere apologies.

that's exactly it. We can be familiar with guns, though! But the government needs to keep them until it's time to use them to fight the government with.

someone kill me now.

 

[GunGrey]

Oh jesus tap dancing christ

 

[drgrant]

NES Street Fighter II:

Starring:

Spcantwell as: Blanka

Everyone else as: Ryu



I can't see this getting any better... you guys have dragon punched him like 48 times and he still keeps blanka rolling....