Welcome to Northwest Firearms
Join our community, sign up for free today!
Sign Up

American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-2A

I saved this from an article that I read in 2015.... it’s even more appropriate today with the ever growing 2A Sanctuary movement. It’s worth another read.... remember, you are NOT alone.




American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-gun liberals. Here it is, in its entirety. Ready?

“Screw you.” That’s it. Except the first word isn’t “Screw.”

It’s not exactly a traditional argument, but it’s certainly appropriate here. The fact is that there is no point in arguing with liberal gun-control advocates because their argument is never in good faith. They slander gun owners as murderers. They lie about their ultimate aim, which is to ban and confiscate all privately owned weapons. And they adopt a pose of reasonability, yet their position is not susceptible to change because of evidence, facts or law. None of those matter – they already have their conclusion. This has to do with power – their power.

You can’t argue with someone who is lying about his position or whose position is not based upon reason. You can talk all day about how crime has diminished where concealed carry is allowed, while it flourishes in Democrat blue cities where gun control is tightest. You can point to statistics showing that law-abiding citizens who carry legally are exponentially less likely to commit gun crimes than other people. You can cite examples of armed citizens protecting themselves and their communities with guns. You can offer government statistics showing how the typical American is at many times greater risk of death from an automobile crash, a fall, or poisoning than from murder by gun.

But none of that matters, because this debate is not about facts. It’s about power. The liberal anti-gun narrative is not aimed at creating the best public policy but at disarming citizens the liberal elite looks down upon – and for whom weapons represent their last-ditch ability to respond to liberal overreach.

Put simply, liberal elitists don’t like the fact that, at the end of the day, an armed citizenry can tell them, “No.”

So they argue in bad faith, shamelessly lying, libeling their opponents, and hiding their real endgame. Sure, sometimes the mask slips and a liberal politician like Mike Bloomberg or Diane Feinstein reveals their true agenda, but mostly they stay on-message.

For example, Barack Obama, who always tries to reassure us bitter clingers that he doesn’t want to take our guns, speaks longingly about the Australian plan – which was confiscation of most viable defensive weapons from the civilian population.

Obama is lying – about gay marriage, about your doctor – and he is likewise lying about guns. The minute he could disarm every American civilian he would, something particularly alarming in light of his pal Bill Ayers’ infamous observation that ‘fundamentally transforming’ America would require killing at least 25 million citizens.

No wonder free Americans are done pretending the gun argument is a rational debate and are responding with an extended middle finger – and the challenge to come and take their arms. The fact remains that any outright attempt to take the arms from tens of millions of American gun owners would almost certainly result in a second Civil War. And we all know how the first Civil War went for the Democrats.

So, through a campaign of shaming, dissembling, and outright slander, liberals are trying to talk Americans into giving up their weapons voluntarily. There’s always another “common sense” restriction to enact, spurred on by a tragedy that the last “common sense” restriction didn’t prevent and that the proposed new “common sense” restriction would not have prevented. They want to do it in baby steps, and with our cooperation, since they cannot do it by force.

There are a few people arguing in good faith, but it’s too late. Liberal writer Kurt Eichenwald recently wrote a “compromise” proposal to settle the gun issue that was notable because he actually analyzed gun freedom arguments and agreed with some of them. He cited the silliness of the “assault weapons” and “cop killer” bullet lies. While he still rejects 30 round capacity magazines, he began with opposition to silencers and then, after hearing facts and evidence from knowledgeable gun owners, changed his position. That’s good faith, the threshold requirement for a real debate, but Eichenwald mistakenly assumes this is a debate based upon reason between good faith opponents. It’s not. It’s based upon the desire of liberals for total supremacy.

So until the gun control argument becomes a real argument instead of a transparent power grab, there’s only one appropriate response to liberal gun banners. And it’s similar to “Screw you.”
 

s1xty7

Messages
158
Reactions
429
While I agree that it is difficult to attack an entrenched position, maybe it's a matter of tactics. Rather than charge the problem head on, change their minds one at a time. Next time you're hanging out with a anti-gun person, invite them out to go shooting so that they can better understand the discussion. Most people are likely to have a good time, learn gun safety, and maybe gain a little perspective. Then, next time there is a rally for anti-gun legislation, perhaps that person doesn't go. Perhaps they don't make that anti-gun comment at the end of that news article. Maybe they start talking with their other anti-gun friends about how it isn't exactly what they think it is. Maybe they invite someone else to go shooting and see what it's all about.

It can certainly be frustrating when you are talking to a crowd that won't listen, but giving up isn't going to make any sort of progress.
 
Very relevant to what’s going on today, it’s not an honest conversation, it’s one sided and the MSM has taken the bait, hook line and sinker...

Us old guys need to ensure the youth and younger citizens of this nation understands the truth behind the desire of TPTB to disarm us, there’s a reason, and I believe it’s much more sinister than just power...

Remember these same people who want you disarmed also are in favor of killing unborn or just born babies, in favor of assisted suicide and are for population reduction, you know, to save the planet... Think real hard on that for a moment and perhaps you too will understand the true desire to disarm the populace...
 

Taco_lean

Messages
2,552
Reactions
5,399
Replace Obama with Trump now. Lol he has done more to take away guns and expand executive power than oBama ever did.

Not saying I liked Obama. I am saying people need to wake up and realize both sides of .gov DGAF about you, work for the same people, and would kill you in a second if it got them an iota of more power.
 
Messages
649
Reactions
799
I saved this from an article that I read in 2015.... it’s even more appropriate today with the ever growing 2A Sanctuary movement. It’s worth another read.... remember, you are NOT alone.




American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-gun liberals. Here it is, in its entirety. Ready?

“Screw you.” That’s it. Except the first word isn’t “Screw.”

It’s not exactly a traditional argument, but it’s certainly appropriate here. The fact is that there is no point in arguing with liberal gun-control advocates because their argument is never in good faith. They slander gun owners as murderers. They lie about their ultimate aim, which is to ban and confiscate all privately owned weapons. And they adopt a pose of reasonability, yet their position is not susceptible to change because of evidence, facts or law. None of those matter – they already have their conclusion. This has to do with power – their power.

You can’t argue with someone who is lying about his position or whose position is not based upon reason. You can talk all day about how crime has diminished where concealed carry is allowed, while it flourishes in Democrat blue cities where gun control is tightest. You can point to statistics showing that law-abiding citizens who carry legally are exponentially less likely to commit gun crimes than other people. You can cite examples of armed citizens protecting themselves and their communities with guns. You can offer government statistics showing how the typical American is at many times greater risk of death from an automobile crash, a fall, or poisoning than from murder by gun.

But none of that matters, because this debate is not about facts. It’s about power. The liberal anti-gun narrative is not aimed at creating the best public policy but at disarming citizens the liberal elite looks down upon – and for whom weapons represent their last-ditch ability to respond to liberal overreach.

Put simply, liberal elitists don’t like the fact that, at the end of the day, an armed citizenry can tell them, “No.”

So they argue in bad faith, shamelessly lying, libeling their opponents, and hiding their real endgame. Sure, sometimes the mask slips and a liberal politician like Mike Bloomberg or Diane Feinstein reveals their true agenda, but mostly they stay on-message.

For example, Barack Obama, who always tries to reassure us bitter clingers that he doesn’t want to take our guns, speaks longingly about the Australian plan – which was confiscation of most viable defensive weapons from the civilian population.

Obama is lying – about gay marriage, about your doctor – and he is likewise lying about guns. The minute he could disarm every American civilian he would, something particularly alarming in light of his pal Bill Ayers’ infamous observation that ‘fundamentally transforming’ America would require killing at least 25 million citizens.

No wonder free Americans are done pretending the gun argument is a rational debate and are responding with an extended middle finger – and the challenge to come and take their arms. The fact remains that any outright attempt to take the arms from tens of millions of American gun owners would almost certainly result in a second Civil War. And we all know how the first Civil War went for the Democrats.

So, through a campaign of shaming, dissembling, and outright slander, liberals are trying to talk Americans into giving up their weapons voluntarily. There’s always another “common sense” restriction to enact, spurred on by a tragedy that the last “common sense” restriction didn’t prevent and that the proposed new “common sense” restriction would not have prevented. They want to do it in baby steps, and with our cooperation, since they cannot do it by force.

There are a few people arguing in good faith, but it’s too late. Liberal writer Kurt Eichenwald recently wrote a “compromise” proposal to settle the gun issue that was notable because he actually analyzed gun freedom arguments and agreed with some of them. He cited the silliness of the “assault weapons” and “cop killer” bullet lies. While he still rejects 30 round capacity magazines, he began with opposition to silencers and then, after hearing facts and evidence from knowledgeable gun owners, changed his position. That’s good faith, the threshold requirement for a real debate, but Eichenwald mistakenly assumes this is a debate based upon reason between good faith opponents. It’s not. It’s based upon the desire of liberals for total supremacy.

So until the gun control argument becomes a real argument instead of a transparent power grab, there’s only one appropriate response to liberal gun banners. And it’s similar to “Screw you.”
Good stuff, and I totally agree with you! No doubt, most people on this forum have similar views. The problem that you are speaking to is a lack of discussion on the matter. Those who are anti-second amendment put the blame on the firearm. Obviously, firearms have been around for a long time. So, what's changed? Thirty years ago, there was no issue with gun violence like there is today. Therefore, the problem is not guns but people. A societal shift has occurred, and putting the blame on tougher gun legislation is a typical ploy to misdirect responsibility. Everything is trending backwards, but we are not!
 

Basedgreaser

Messages
1,051
Reactions
2,436
Agree fully.
I also think the best way to undermine anti constitutionalists platform is to actually solve the issues we face. Not as a counter measure to them but just simply pushing for solutions that we believe in.
If we could get policies in place that stop school shootings for instance, what platform would anti gunners have to stand up and say “children are dying so ban guns”. Well if children stop dying their platform becomes “ban guns” and most people arent going to care about that talking point unless people are actually dying.
Not that i have any clue where to start on solving inner city violence,
But i do believe we need a better scientific understanding of mental illness, everything from depression to ptsd and that requires expensive research. What would it take to coordinate a grass roots or structural effort to get more money into mental health research? Who would conduct it? How would it play out?
I dont know but its just a thought.
 
Messages
649
Reactions
799
Clearly, the issues of our country are much bigger than politics, because the politicians, regardless of the Party in power, are not getting it done. And neither is it merely a philosophical or theoretical problem; otherwise, it could again be fixed. Many American's have lost their identity! A person can self identify today as a snail if they so choose. The lack of identity is also a moral and spiritual problem. Because people have lost their identity of origin, they have gotten off track, have no sense of direction, and drifting with the societal current. Consequently, it doesn't matter how well we argue! In other words, I don't see this as an easy fix that can merely get straightened out by clever wordsmiths.
 
Messages
2
Reactions
4
Well-written.

Although it sounds as if you're "unwilling to have a discussion", it does bring up the important issue of bad faith on the part of the anti-firearms-rights crowd. I.e. choosing not to play a rigged game. I've had this feeling for several years now.

Something I found very thought-provoking recently was an interview with Jordan Peterson on Joe Rogan's Podcast (the earlier one, I think). He spoke about the philosophic basis of a lot of the strident pronoun/gender/PC agitators that make news for saying something particularly unreasonable.

The point he made is that some of the post-modern thinkers, dating back to early 20th-century French intellectuals like Foucault and Derrida, see the discussion as primarily about power. I.e. it's not about any underlying truth, it's about who gets to define reality. This is also acknowledged (practically) in applied sociology, and explains a lot of the shouting down and intimidation of anyone who won't tow the party line in public life.

So... the rhetoric about "common sense" etc is largely a bait-and-switch IMO. But, and this is a big but, it resonates with people who are well-meaning but not deeply immersed or knowledgeable. E.g. the safe, well-to-do liberals in my own community. Some of them don't know about guns, and think "well, who would need a gun? I don't know... it always seemed reasonable but maybe not".

So, just like dealing with internet trolls (by ignoring them), maybe the "screw you" or "take a hike" attitude is not the worst thing one could do to the anti-firearms-rights crowd. I don't mean be rude or aggravating, but simply don't acknowledge their standing as honest brokers.

More mileage by simply living a good example and also introducing others to guns.

Just some thoughts of my own, while reading about all the 1639 stupidity. These 2 cents, and $2.97 additional, will get you a cup of marginal coffee at Starbuck's. ;)
 
Messages
662
Reactions
1,576
^^ Indeed. However they're not trying to talk law abiding gun owners into voluntarily giving up their firearms, they're trying to vilify, shame and smear them into do so. Some are trying to get NRA and 'terrorist organization' into the same sentence.

Good discussion from Tucker Carlson earlier this week:


Boss
 
Messages
649
Reactions
799
Well-written.

Although it sounds as if you're "unwilling to have a discussion", it does bring up the important issue of bad faith on the part of the anti-firearms-rights crowd. I.e. choosing not to play a rigged game. I've had this feeling for several years now.

Something I found very thought-provoking recently was an interview with Jordan Peterson on Joe Rogan's Podcast (the earlier one, I think). He spoke about the philosophic basis of a lot of the strident pronoun/gender/PC agitators that make news for saying something particularly unreasonable.

The point he made is that some of the post-modern thinkers, dating back to early 20th-century French intellectuals like Foucault and Derrida, see the discussion as primarily about power. I.e. it's not about any underlying truth, it's about who gets to define reality. This is also acknowledged (practically) in applied sociology, and explains a lot of the shouting down and intimidation of anyone who won't tow the party line in public life.

So... the rhetoric about "common sense" etc is largely a bait-and-switch IMO. But, and this is a big but, it resonates with people who are well-meaning but not deeply immersed or knowledgeable. E.g. the safe, well-to-do liberals in my own community. Some of them don't know about guns, and think "well, who would need a gun? I don't know... it always seemed reasonable but maybe not".

So, just like dealing with internet trolls (by ignoring them), maybe the "screw you" or "take a hike" attitude is not the worst thing one could do to the anti-firearms-rights crowd. I don't mean be rude or aggravating, but simply don't acknowledge their standing as honest brokers.

More mileage by simply living a good example and also introducing others to guns.

Just some thoughts of my own, while reading about all the 1639 stupidity. These 2 cents, and $2.97 additional, will get you a cup of marginal coffee at Starbuck's. r the 2nd Amendment. I am not the OP, but the 2nd Amendment is a nondiscussable. The 2nd Amendment clearly states that it is in the interest of national security for the "people to keep and bear Arms."
Well-written.

Although it sounds as if you're "unwilling to have a discussion", it does bring up the important issue of bad faith on the part of the anti-firearms-rights crowd. I.e. choosing not to play a rigged game. I've had this feeling for several years now.

Something I found very thought-provoking recently was an interview with Jordan Peterson on Joe Rogan's Podcast (the earlier one, I think). He spoke about the philosophic basis of a lot of the strident pronoun/gender/PC agitators that make news for saying something particularly unreasonable.

The point he made is that some of the post-modern thinkers, dating back to early 20th-century French intellectuals like Foucault and Derrida, see the discussion as primarily about power. I.e. it's not about any underlying truth, it's about who gets to define reality. This is also acknowledged (practically) in applied sociology, and explains a lot of the shouting down and intimidation of anyone who won't tow the party line in public life.

So... the rhetoric about "common sense" etc is largely a bait-and-switch IMO. But, and this is a big but, it resonates with people who are well-meaning but not deeply immersed or knowledgeable. E.g. the safe, well-to-do liberals in my own community. Some of them don't know about guns, and think "well, who would need a gun? I don't know... it always seemed reasonable but maybe not".

So, just like dealing with internet trolls (by ignoring them), maybe the "screw you" or "take a hike" attitude is not the worst thing one could do to the anti-firearms-rights crowd. I don't mean be rude or aggravating, but simply don't acknowledge their standing as honest brokers.

More mileage by simply living a good example and also introducing others to guns.

Just some thoughts of my own, while reading about all the 1639 stupidity. These 2 cents, and $2.97 additional, will get you a cup of marginal coffee at Starbuck's. ;)
I am not the OP, but the 2nd Amendment is a nondiscussable. The 2nd Amendment clearly states that it is in the interest of national security for the "people to keep and bear Arms." It declares it a "right", which "shall not be infringed." I love that word, infringed. It's a legal term that unequivocally declares don't even think about weakening the right. Clearly, the Constitution guarantees that there is no compromise on the 2nd Amendment!
 

LATEST REVIEWS

  • Klickitat County Firearms Training Facility
    4.00 star(s)
    Not really a range guy, as in I am 53 years old and today is the very first time I have been to an actual managed shooting range. Also, not a WA...
    • CRBMoA
  • Supporting Vendor Oregon Arms & Ammunition
    5.00 star(s)
    I've made several purchases here over the past few years and I've had a great experience every time. Prices are good, their staff is helpful, and...
    • Joe Link
  • Big Iron Armory
    5.00 star(s)
    It's great to have an LGS inside Portland Metro. Walt and Noah have put care into setting good prices and acquiring quality firearms and...
    • kr0ptkin
  • Supporting Vendor Lucky Sporting Goods
    5.00 star(s)
    Well I finally got around to taking pics of the Cerakoting work that Jeremy of Lucky Sports did for my wife and me about 3 weeks ago. We couldn't...
    • jg rider
  • Supporting Vendor Lucky Sporting Goods
    5.00 star(s)
    Here's more work that Jeremy did for me The first 3 pics are of an RIA frame that I had Cerakoted years back by an outfit in Molino. I had Jeremy...
    • jg rider

Staff online