• 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.

Stumped an anti gunner

AngelKing

AngelKing

Joined
Oct 13, 2010
Messages
5,490
Likes
1,592
Location
Hyde Park
Feedback: 14 / 0 / 0
Had this conversation at a bar last night. The woman, a college Instructor, was very smart, I'll give her that much, was discussing with me the merits of gun control and the reasons for the need to come to some sort of 'compromise' that balances rights with 'public safety and the common good.'

This went on for some time, and I found she wasn't anti gun per se, she was just as a lot of folks, dismayed at the violence in places like Tucson and elsewhere. She kept comng back at why won't the NRA meet with Obama? Why won't gun owners compromise?

I explained that as gun owners, we have done nothing but compromise, and in most instances have had no say whatsoever in the drafting of new laws, which disporportinatly affect US as opposed to the criminals they intend to stop.

Besides, I asked, when using the language of compromise, that involves a certain give or take. What are you willing to give us in exchange for further compromises? Realizing the second amendment already grants us that civil right and realizing that US V Heller confirmed that gun ownership is an individual right, what is your side willing to give us? National CCW? A promise to stop with the mag bans? An end to discretionary licensure? What are you willing to give up?

She was far more gracious than I had expected and bought the table a round.
 
it is easy enough to stump an anti gunner, maybe a more surprising title for this thread should have been "Anti was gracious when they didn't have the answer to common sense questions"
 
She wasn't really loud at all, just very out of her element when it comes to dealing with people on our side who have no problem being rational. I find that there are definitely extremes on both sides and while this doesn't mean we ought to comprmise, we ought to take advantage of those few times when the other side is willing to be calm and rational.
 
In my experience true anti-gunners cannot eb swayed by facts or logic. Gun control is, for these people, an article of faith. When some facts threatens their beliefs they turn off their intellect. Bzzzzzt!
 
AngelKing said:
She wasn't really loud at all, just very out of her element when it comes to dealing with people on our side who have no problem being rational. I find that there are definitely extremes on both sides and while this doesn't mean we ought to comprmise, we ought to take advantage of those few times when the other side is willing to be calm and rational.
Click to expand...

Kudos to you for trying. I agree with your comment wholeheartedly. Not going to the table on part of the NRA is something I cannot agree with. It's perfectly fine not to give any thing up but failing to even talk gives an appearance of being a bully. I loved it with Jim Wallace was on WBUR Radio Boston. It wasn't a welcoming interview but it was so apparent that he was the only one who was being reasonable. May be it didn't convince any antis but it sure as hell beats them saying "we invited GOAL to participate but they refused"!
 
piman said:
Not going to the table on part of the NRA is something I cannot agree with. It's perfectly fine not to give any thing up but failing to even talk gives an appearance of being a bully.
Click to expand...

We've been pissed on for long enough. Besides, the NRA will simply walk into an ambush if it sits at the table with the Obama administration. Obama is NOT coming into this in good faith.

The NRA is right on to snub his stupid ass and I no longer care how unreasonable we seem to the ignorant.

F them
 
I've met a few people who weren't the "I hate all guns, no one needs a gun, they are yucky!" ANTI's, and a few "I think people should have guns but under very strict guidelines!" ANTI's....the latter are easier to sway onto our side, but at the end of the day, my rights are MY rights and what scares YOU shouldn't affect ME.
 
piman said:
Kudos to you for trying. I agree with your comment wholeheartedly. Not going to the table on part of the NRA is something I cannot agree with. It's perfectly fine not to give any thing up but failing to even talk gives an appearance of being a bully. I loved it with Jim Wallace was on WBUR Radio Boston. It wasn't a welcoming interview but it was so apparent that he was the only one who was being reasonable. May be it didn't convince any antis but it sure as hell beats them saying "we invited GOAL to participate but they refused"!
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between a media contact and getting "invited" by a government official who is 110% anti gun to "talk". NRA's reason for snubbing Obama is completely legit, as all Obama wants to talk about is adding more gun control, and if the NRA showed up, it would, in effect, lend credence to the notion that gun control is a legitimate idea.

Think about how they would spin that.... "NRA sits down with Obama to discuss gun control" get spun into "See, even the NRA thinks that gun control is a good idea" even if they basically told him to FOAD after sitting down.

Talking to Obama about this issue is like negotiating with a terrorist. It's not like the antis don't know what our position is.

-Mike
 
Im not an NRA guy by any stretch....but I think this was the first good move they've made in a very long time. The NRA going to the white house to meet with him, Holder and Clinton - 3 people who had no problem authorizing gun sales to cartels whilst using the deaths from these weapons as a bludge to our rights.....

I don't see that as working out for anyone except Obama and his aim to get a cheap media appearance
 
There's a big difference between a media contact and getting "invited" by a government official who is 110% anti gun to "talk". NRA's reason for snubbing Obama is completely legit, as all Obama wants to talk about is adding more gun control, and if the NRA showed up, it would, in effect, lend credence to the notion that gun control is a legitimate idea.

Think about how they would spin that.... "NRA sits down with Obama to discuss gun control" get spun into "See, even the NRA thinks that gun control is a good idea" even if they basically told him to FOAD after sitting down.

...
Click to expand...

That is an excellent point. Coming to think of it, who knows how many failed discussions preceded this on the naming, location etc.
 
MST_2009 said:
There in lies the problem. The ones who know the least wont STFU and listen. They are afraid they might learn something factual and their pea-brains may burst.
Click to expand...

Sadly, that's on both sides of just about every politicized debate, only the ones capable of understanding the concept of "middle" will ever have a snowball's chance in even having a coherent conversation.
 
davemata said:
Sadly, that's on both sides of just about every politicized debate, only the ones capable of understanding the concept of "middle" will ever have a snowball's chance in even having a coherent conversation.
Click to expand...

Problem is, we have come to the middle. They have gotten us to so willingly and feel that we'll walk the rest of the way on our own.

Personally, I'm sick and tired of debating to myself every 5 years, whether or not I'll renew my Class A and let the cookies fall where they may.
 
......By showing her the videos of the criminals and gang members - and their answers, of how they would respond to any gvt firearms laws and restrictions (Hint - They aint gonna comply a darn).

They need to realize that they are barking up the wrong tree (they are trying to disarm the percentage of the population that care about obeying the laws)......They just don't get it....

UGH!
 
Whenever someone does something bad with firearms, politicians will try to take guns away from those who didn't do anything. That makes no sense, and most should be able to understand it.
 
Most all anti's are emotional not logical. Thus logic does not work. If logic played a role in there thinking they would no be able to exist.

Restrictive firearm law states = high crime

Low or no firearm law states = low crime

Very easy to see.
 
I think that one way pro 2A people hurt their argument is when they say "criminals are not going to obey gun laws." I think most antis realize this. The crux of the anti's argument is not that new gun laws will be obeyed by ciminals, but rather that new gun laws will limit the criminal's access to the firearms. When DC had the handgun ban in effect, but still a high gun homicide rate, most of those guns used in the murders were obviously imported from out of state.

Maybe it prevented some criminals from arming themselves, but it probably just drove up the black market price of guns in DC. The criminals were still able to ignore the ban and ALL of the law abiding citizens were disarmed.

When confronted by an anti, I just say that I am 100% behind any gun law that will prevent crime and violence while not IN ANY WAY infringing on the rights of law abiding gun owners. I am rabidly against these small new measures they talk about like 1 gun a month because they will have no effect on crime. All they are is another small step towards an outright ban.
 
Last edited:
AngelKing said:
Besides, I asked, when using the language of compromise, that involves a certain give or take. What are you willing to give us in exchange for further compromises? Realizing the second amendment already grants us that civil right and realizing that US V Heller confirmed that gun ownership is an individual right, what is your side willing to give us? National CCW? A promise to stop with the mag bans? An end to discretionary licensure? What are you willing to give up?
Click to expand...

Keenly insightful. Typically when people like anti-gunner say "compromise" what they mean is "you give up something to me."
 
codenamepaul said:
Problem is, we have come to the middle. They have gotten us to so willingly and feel that we'll walk the rest of the way on our own.

Personally, I'm sick and tired of debating to myself every 5 years, whether or not I'll renew my Class A and let the cookies fall where they may.
Click to expand...

I think the better debate, is why live somewhere where I HAVE TO RENEW A LICENSE for a gun? There's a lot of misunderstanding in their camp, from a belief that guns go off on their own, to having an amazing ability to turn everyone into trained killers. Pissed off gun owners don't help the matter any. If they're willing to chat like normal humans and not like totalitarian mutjobbers or zealots, then by all means, play ball, but at the end of the day, you have to take care of yourself, and debating over a license is not taking care of yourself.
 
In God We Trust said:
I think that one way pro 2A people hurt their argument is when they say "criminals are not going to obey gun laws." I think most antis realize this.
Click to expand...

Tthey realize it but they don't care. The reality is, that most antis want to ban guns, they don't actually care about "crime". The crime whining is just an excuse or a pretext they use, so they can suck the people that don't know any better onto their side of the argument by default.

-Mike
 
ipscdrl said:
Whenever someone does something bad with firearms, politicians will try to take guns away from those who didn't do anything. That makes no sense, and most should be able to understand it.
Click to expand...

yet these are the same people who scream the loudest when a classroom full of kids get punished for the one kid who did something wrong.
 

Similar threads

Cant post an add in the Classiifieds, what gives?
Replies
12
Views
372
cams
cams
Antique lower?
Replies
15
Views
507
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
Is an FA-10 form needed?
Replies
19
Views
443
dcmdon
dcmdon
Whats the difference between a port and an expansion chamber
Replies
2
Views
157
jkelly1229
J
This hurt my brain reading this "article" on an AR-15
Replies
14
Views
525
Broc
Broc
Back
Top Bottom