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

[Stomper]

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.

"Having a discussion" are weasel words used by the statists that is code for, "we'll vilify you, attempt to control the narrative, take you out of context, misconstrue facts, and either convince you or force you to give up your guns."


Damned right I have less than ZERO interest in "having a discussion" with the anti-2A's. As for being an example to those on the fence or who are ignorant, absolutely... but I'll do it while being... ME!

 

[G8rHunter]

Damned right I have less than ZERO interest in "having a discussion" with the anti-2A's. As for being an example to those on the fence or who are ignorant, absolutely... but I'll do it while being... ME!

The problem is that there's no interpretation to be made of the 2nd Amendment: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Short and to the point. There's nothing open to interpretation!

 

[Boss]

^^...the very point of the article is that everything they're saying is a lie, as they're not admitting their actual agenda, and facts contrary to their agenda are worthless.

'Have a conversation...' = what else can we taken away from you.

Have they ever tried a conversation where they wanted to give something back, or even exchange?? Something like 'Hey, want you to get training for your CPL. So for folks that do, they can carry anywhere.'. No. Every single time they want to have a conversation it's about how can they introduce new, restrictive laws. A compromise is supposed to be a two-way street, but in their case, its not...its just what will we give up.

As said elsewhere, if we're going to continue to be completely defensive legislatively, we're going to slowly but surely lose at the rate we're going. We need to stop being the punching bag and start putting them into defense by introducing pro 2A legislation.

I would really like to see someone in the legislature introduce a bill where restrictions on firearms can only be considered ever 8+ years. Then maybe they'd start focusing on some of the much larger problems...homelessness, drugs, education, etc.


My $.02.

Boss

 

[GWS]

"Screw you." That's it. Except the first word isn't "Screw."

Heh! That's where most of my "discussions" with anti-gun idiots end anyway. I should just start with that and save myself the time.

Their idea of give and take is we give and they take.
Eff 'em indeed!

 

[G8rHunter]

^^...the very point of the article is that everything they're saying is a lie, as they're not admitting their actual agenda, and facts contrary to their agenda are worthless.

'Have a conversation...' = what else can we taken away from you.

Have they ever tried a conversation where they wanted to give something back, or even exchange?? Something like 'Hey, want you to get training for your CPL. So for folks that do, they can carry anywhere.'. No. Every single time they want to have a conversation it's about how can they introduce new, restrictive laws. A compromise is supposed to be a two-way street, but in their case, its not...its just what will we give up.

As said elsewhere, if we're going to continue to be completely defensive legislatively, we're going to slowly but surely lose at the rate we're going. We need to stop being the punching bag and start putting them into defense by introducing pro 2A legislation.

I would really like to see someone in the legislature introduce a bill where restrictions on firearms can only be considered ever 8+ years. Then maybe they'd start focusing on some of the much larger problems...homelessness, drugs, education, etc.


My $.02.

Boss

Actually, I would like to agree with you, except I don't see gun legislation as the answer. The problem is not guns! The problem is a few people who have no conscience for what they are doing. The problem is a major breakdown in morality and a lack of stiff consequences for misbehavior. The media has had a sharp increase in violence, both in movies and gaming. So, society has revealed a greater tolerance for evilness in general and violence in particular. I'm not suggesting that's the entire problem, but it's a major contributor.

As far as homelessness is concerned, the city of Portland budgeted $32 million dollars for homelessness, and the problem has worsened, not improved.

 

[Member 5605]

A while back, had @MountainBear and I told an individual new to firearms "Screw You", they would have walked away.

Now, months ago, they tried to reason with their anti-friends and they were ostracized. Not to reason for full allowance but for as he worded "reasonable" laws. He now has a taste of how the pro-gun people feel when attempting any rational conversation.

Pick your battles and arguments gain your position no ground.

I battle with time, logic and reason, I do Ethos and Logos, mainly Logos.

 

[NW Backpacker]

Replace Obama with Trump now. Lol he has done more to take away guns and expand executive power than oBama ever did.

Compare the judges appointed by Obama with those appointed by Trump, and you may reconsider your position. Trump has done a LOT that is positive for the 2A.

 

[Mikej]

A while back, had @MountainBear and I told an individual new to firearms "Screw You", they would have walked away.

Now, months ago, they tried to reason with their anti-friends and they were ostracized. Not to reason for full allowance but for as he worded "reasonable" laws. He now has a taste of how the pro-gun people feel when attempting any rational conversation.

Pick your battles and arguments gain your position no ground.

I battle with time, logic and reason, I do Ethos and Logos, mainly Logos.

I don't bother with "Screw You!". It's frustrating trying to talk some kind of sense to "Those people" there's a couple of "Them" in my life, on a weekly/semi weekly, basis. There's this blank look, frequently followed but THE question..." Why does a person need a *******?". Which, or course, is followed by my question, "Why does a person need *******?" That's followed by another blank look and, frequently, "Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree." And then the convo is over. It's so GD frustrating! Living in potland I feel like I'm completely surrounded by "Those" people! I don't think there any any middle ground kind of people? The kind that don't care to own firearms, but believe it's wrong to put all these stupid laws and restrictions on those that do own firearms.

 

[Stomper]

A while back, had @MountainBear and I told an individual new to firearms "Screw You", they would have walked away.

Now, months ago, they tried to reason with their anti-friends and they were ostracized. Not to reason for full allowance but for as he worded "reasonable" laws. He now has a taste of how the pro-gun people feel when attempting any rational conversation.

Pick your battles and arguments gain your position no ground.

I battle with time, logic and reason, I do Ethos and Logos, mainly Logos.

Be prepared to exercise a little dose of KRATOS in the near future. (No, that's not an acronym... it's also a Greek word)

 

[Stomper]

I don't bother with "Screw You!". It's frustrating trying to talk some kind of sense to "Those people" there's a couple of "Them" in my life, on a weekly/semi weekly, basis. There's this blank look, frequently followed but THE question..." Why does a person need a *******?". Which, or course, is followed by my question, "Why does a person need *******?" That's followed by another blank look and, frequently, "Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree." And then the convo is over. It's so GD frustrating! Living in potland I feel like I'm completely surrounded by "Those" people! I don't think there any any middle ground kind of people? The kind that don't care to own firearms, but believe it's wrong to put all these stupid laws and restrictions on those that do own firearms.

Next time try saying, "because carrying a cop around all the time is too heavy".

 

[Mikej]

Next time try saying, "because carrying a cop around all the time is too heavy".

Yeah, funny. Do you think that would get through to them? Get any consideration what so ever? Rhetorical question. I'm surrounded, and immersed by/in these people!

 

[Geardo]

Compare the judges appointed by Obama with those appointed by Trump, and you may reconsider your position. Trump has done a LOT that is positive for the 2A.

His rhetoric has done a ton of damage. Illegally Banning bumpstocks on a whim, talking about banning suppresors.

Some of The judges he has appointed are also have a crap view on other personal freedoms, and I am still waiting for a positive 2A ruling from one of these judges.

 

[Boss]

I don't recall ever seeing O, or any other recent president for that matter, speaking at the NRA convention.

Boss

 

[Geardo]

I don't recall ever seeing O, or any other recent president for that matter, speaking at the NRA convention.

Boss

Oh yeah because the NRA is so useful....

 

[G8rHunter]

I don't bother with "Screw You!". It's frustrating trying to talk some kind of sense to "Those people" there's a couple of "Them" in my life, on a weekly/semi weekly, basis. There's this blank look, frequently followed but THE question..." Why does a person need a *******?". Which, or course, is followed by my question, "Why does a person need *******?" That's followed by another blank look and, frequently, "Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree." And then the convo is over. It's so GD frustrating! Living in potland I feel like I'm completely surrounded by "Those" people! I don't think there any any middle ground kind of people? The kind that don't care to own firearms, but believe it's wrong to put all these stupid laws and restrictions on those that do own firearms.

Yeah, I know how eastern Oregon feels, because Potland controls everything! I so bad want to live in the USA again! Cluck dem!!!

 

[G8rHunter]

I don't recall ever seeing O, or any other recent president for that matter, speaking at the NRA convention.

Boss

That would been like Hillry showing up! Ain't happenin!!!

 

[Stomper]

That would been like Hillry showing up! Ain't happenin!!!

She would if there were more labishians attending.

 

[bbbass]

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...

Huh, I don't remember what I wanted to say... Okay, how about "RIGHT ON"!!

I don't bother with "Screw You!". It's frustrating trying to talk some kind of sense to "Those people" there's a couple of "Them" in my life, on a weekly/semi weekly, basis. There's this blank look, frequently followed but THE question..." Why does a person need a *******?". Which, or course, is followed by my question, "Why does a person need *******?" That's followed by another blank look and, frequently, "Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree." And then the convo is over. It's so GD frustrating! Living in potland I feel like I'm completely surrounded by "Those" people! I don't think there any any middle ground kind of people? The kind that don't care to own firearms, but believe it's wrong to put all these stupid laws and restrictions on those that do own firearms.

Yeah, funny. Do you think that would get through to them? Get any consideration what so ever? Rhetorical question. I'm surrounded, and immersed by/in these people!

@Mikej, you really need to GTFO ASAP!! BTW, I have a friend that lived in Santa Rosa and complained and complained. Then he moved to Reno... I don't know what the people there are like, but he's not complaining about being surrounded. I wish you all the best!!!

 

[NW Backpacker]

His rhetoric has done a ton of damage. Illegally Banning bumpstocks on a whim, talking about banning suppresors.

Some of The judges he has appointed are also have a crap view on other personal freedoms, and I am still waiting for a positive 2A ruling from one of these judges.

Here are three rulings by T judges in favor of the 2A, although they were minority opinions:

Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears: Amy Coney Barrett Tries to Overturn Law Banning People Convicted of Felonies from Possessing Firearms

Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears: Trump judges fume over the Second Amendment and vote to reconsider decision upholding federal gun law

This one, about the right to carry firearms, is very interesting. I've provided 2 links to it - both good reads:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-894_p86b.pdf

Peruta v. San Diego County - Wikipedia

 

[CHLChris]

Replace Obama with Trump now. Lol he has done more to take away guns and expand executive power than oBama ever did.

I think your memory is really defective. Besides bump stocks, what other things has Trump done to take away guns? And expanding executive power? I think you just forgot the huge array of horrible power grabs Obama did. OMG your memory is flawed and clouded.