argument against gun control... wait for it

[RVTECH]

Sounds like the democrats are all for Constitutional violations of Americans Rights"....

They are and While that would have no doubt been the CORRECT response it would most likely have no effect. He, like most hard core liberals do not consider things like 'due process', 'rule of law' or rights. ALL that matters to him is controlling guns through whatever means is necessary so it can 'save just one life' Liberal emotion overrules ANY rational or regard for due process and I think the final line of the Gun Rights article sums it up best:

It's based upon the desire of liberals for total supremacy.

 

[nammac]

It all comes down to money - how many musicians performed for "Colonel" Gaddafi? Or for other tyrants.

Beyonce
Mariah Carey
Usher
Lionel Ritchie
Sting
Nelly Furtado

Among many others

And it isn't like they really need the money to feed their families - these people could stop performing tomorrow and live very comfortably on what they currently have. But they are quite willing to do almost anything to make more money.

Working to be part of the elite class, lording it over their subjects...

 

[nammac]

They are and While that would have no doubt been the CORRECT response it would most likely have no effect. He, like most hard core liberals do not consider things like 'due process', 'rule of law' or rights. ALL that matters to him is controlling guns through whatever means is necessary so it can 'save just one life' Liberal emotion overrules ANY rational or regard for due process and I think the final line of the Gun Rights article sums it up best:

Remind him of the 1930's in Germany... Those who were not part of the Nazi party were put on special lists, watch lists if you will. Eventually disarmed... Followed by extermination...

History continues to repeat itself if one doesn't learn from it...

 

[RVTECH]

Remind him of the 1930's in Germany...

While no doubt a good point most likely again no effect - history for most liberals (if not all) is what happened from 12 noon to now.

 

[nammac]

While no doubt a good point most likely again no effect - history for most liberals (if not all) is what happened from 12 noon to now.

Understood. Many falsely believe such a thing could never happen again... Pay attention to the goings on within our own government. Liberals are headed down that path. Have been since the Gun Control Act of 1968, restricting firearms as a result of the assination of the Kennedy brothers and Dr. King.

Many provisions on that legislation were based on the German Firearms Control Act of 1938, which Senator Dodd from Connecticut lifted directly from the German documentation...

Those who don't educate themselves live is a dark vacuum of untruth...

 

[RVTECH]

While I don't agree with the 'Screw You' approach outlined in the article I certainly understand it. It has been hypothesized the are some liberals 'on the fence' and they can be approached about the 2A and gun rights and maybe there are but I have not met any. I think we are becoming so polarized that for the most part any attempt at a debate with a liberal is going to be ineffective and a waste of time and energy - it certainly is with my cousin.

 

[Stomper]

Understood. Many falsely believe such a thing could never happen again... Pay attention to the goings on within our own government. Liberals are headed down that path. Have been since the Gun Control Act of 1968, restricting firearms as a result of the assination of the Kennedy brothers and Dr. King.

Many provisions on that legislation were based on the German Firearms Control Act of 1938, which Senator Dodd from Connecticut lifted directly from the German documentation...

Those who don't educate themselves live is a dark vacuum of untruth...

Topped with a HEAPING HELPING of vanity & ego....

 

[The Heretic]

While I don't agree with the 'Screw You' approach outlined in the article I certainly understand it. It has been hypothesized the are some liberals 'on the fence' and they can be approached about the 2A and gun rights and maybe there are but I have not met any. I think we are becoming so polarized that for the most part any attempt at a debate with a liberal is going to be ineffective and a waste of time and energy - it certainly is with my cousin.

Nobody - on either side of any issue - once they get riled up, likes to hear calm rational discussion. They want to be more riled up. This is especially true of large groups of people. Those who want to manipulate them don't want them to calm down either - they lose control.

I've posted this before, but it is one of my favorite video snippets because it is SO true:

 

[Doc In UPlace]

There is a factor missing in that piece beyond lying, as far as I read it, and that is fear. Many of the ideologues on the anti-side are mostly unable to fend for themselves, and their fear over being harmed with guns overrides their inclination to use logic and consider facts.

This is true of any ideologue. When arguing between ideologies, bias reigns supreme- on all sides. So does the idea that the opposing view is held only by idiots in whom there is no truth and they have never been right about anything. A situation we know rationally is not possible. But if it makes us feel good, we'll allow it.

But back to lying for a moment. The most impressive lie-job I saw last week came in the form of a web "op-ed" from the Boston Globe.

I ran across it when trying to find out if there was such a group as "Moms Against Guns", a supposed organization Nancy Pelosi mentioned as she thanked all the supporters of the Democrats' sit-in. Turned out it was actually Moms Demand Action. Pelosi didn't even know their name which I think is kind of funny.

So in there (I think on Facebook )was this section from the Boston Globe, that turned out was a link to their animated presentation about "Ban The Assault Rifle."

This was it:



SO!!!!

I didn't remember the Columbus incident, it turned out it was a crazy person who killed Dimebag Derrell and three others. With an "assault rifle", you should believe. I mean, why else would it be mentioned in the come-on above?

So I looked THAT up and what do you know? It was a handgun, not an "assault rifle".


Imagine my surprise!

If you can stand it, here is the Boston Globe thing: Click Here.

 

[billdeserthills]

to clarify I didn't post the article to suggest we use its screw you approach, but I did note your response was in line with many of the points made in the article and with respect. Well done.

Always be civil folks, the righteous have nothing to hide its the evil side that has to lie and usually loses their temper on the subject.

Back when I had a gunstore I tried exactly that, with the fedex 2nd day delivery driver. He let me know how rabidly anti-gun he was, when he began 'attempted delivery' of packages only after I left my shop & made me drive over an hour each time I got a package of guns for years after that, to pick the package up elsewhere.

 

[spookshack]

Here she is making an eHarmony video....

Small world, I love pussy (cats) too!

 

[PaulB47]

On the OP, I agree it is an approach worth using at times, although I would certainly not claim my enemies are "liberals". Keep in mind the "no guns for negroes" beginnings of gun control, which can only be considered more on the conservative end of things. The split is not liberals vs conservatives on this issue; it is as Heinlein recognized it in this quote:
"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."

Gun control is really people control... I know it is hard to imagine, but I have no aims to control other people. I do admire self-control though.

One other thing this brings up is argument over utility versus argument about rights (to use a word I'd rather avoid). Utilitarianism certainly has some drawbacks, and leads to unsatisfactory results. The antis have their "studies" too. No, a simple "F*ck you" has a lot to recommend it. Or my favorite - "I'll kill anyone who attempts to take my guns."

Finally, about arguments on forums and like places, one needs to remember the important people are usually not those you are arguing against (who likely are not going to respond rationally), but those who observe the argument. I actually become pleased when a gun prohibitionist responds with insults and logical fallacies like ad hominem. It means he has lost the argument, and that many of the observers will pick up on that. I do take care not to respond in kind.

 

[Ura-Ki]

I have had exactly ONE conversation go good with an ultra lib anti gun person. I have a family member who is extremely anti gun, and this person is a certified genius, so the odds were stacked against me. The way the discussion started was why would you or any one else need or want an Assault Rifle? Ok, simple enough right? So I started to explain the why and what for, and it dawned on me that I was not going to get far and worse, look like an idiot! SO I freaked him out and dropped an AR in his lap! Imagine his shock and awe that here was an evil black rifle TOUCHING him! I Told him to hold it and look at for a bit, it wouldn't shoot him or any one else on it's own! Then I tossed him a loaded 20 round mag and told him that this was the only limit to the power he was now holding in his hands! He was white as a sheet. I then asked him to describe for me exactly what made this rifle an assault rifle! I also asked him for the exact definition of assault! After he mucked around trying to keep from loosing his self control, he honestly couldn't come up with any thing on ether question with out looking at this AR in his hands! I then handed him an M-1 Garand, and asked him to tell me the differences he saw and how one was an evil assault rifle and the other wasn't! again, he had no answer! I then explained to him how the M-1 Won WW 2 for the U.S. and with out it we would have had a very hard time beating the Axis! Again, he was struck with a loss for an explanation. I then showed him the different bullets of the two and asked him which he thought would be worse! After he gathered his composure, I asked him if he felt there was any thing about the evil black rifle he felt differently about, He said............Yes! I then offered to take him out side and let him shoot them both, and to see for him self, what all the fuss was about, to my surprise, he agreed. While I didn't convert any one, I won some points with some one who has a say in the world and people listen to him! And I did see a few grins from him as he hit targets with them both, and he actually said he likes the M-1 better! He agreed that the term assault rifle was wrong, and that people should at least educate them selves before arguing about something they think is wrong! He agreed to never refer to the AR or any other rifle as an evil or Nasty killing machine, or Black or assault rifle, simply a AR or just Rifle, with no connotations of any thing else! So, I got a win, even when I was sure to loose!

 

[partsed]

Here she is making an eHarmony video....

Substitute the word guns instead of cats and she looks real passionate about them!!

 

[Robtheroofer]

If those for gun control would simply read the true statistics of what is happening in the states and big cities that don't allow citizens to own guns, there would be no argument at all.

There are a few cities in the US of A that have a city ordnance that requires all households to have a gun and these cities have virtually no crime.

According to their thought process all of these cities should have crazy crime and murder rates but they have no crime or murders.

To me gun control is my ability to control my guns. I have great gun control!

 

[The Heretic]

Finally, about arguments on forums and like places, one needs to remember the important people are usually not those you are arguing against (who likely are not going to respond rationally), but those who observe the argument. I actually become pleased when a gun prohibitionist responds with insults and logical fallacies like ad hominem. It means he has lost the argument, and that many of the observers will pick up on that. I do take care not to respond in kind.

Good points, but not necessarily good assumptions.

Yes there are people watching and yes, some may be impressed by a debater remaining calm, but that doesn't mean you will change their minds. In my experience, the people who respect a calm demeanor and a rational argument are not going to necessarily be swayed by your argument.

Also, those people are far and few between. There are just as many people who will ignore everything you said, or worse, it will just make them more angry because you don't respond to their emotional pleas. Remember, most people simply don't think rationally, they react emotionally and they often get mad at people who don't react the same way they do.

That said, reacting with opposing emotional please doesn't help either - i.e., saying f*** you! makes things worse.

 

[PaulB47]

I guess I am saying there is a time and place for both of these tactics.

I agree that most people, even those who like a calm demeanor, won't have their minds changed by an argument. That's just not the way people work. But I think it adds up over time. Everyone has had his mind changed now and then, and not all of them required a life-threatening experience to do it.

Keep in mind, the truth is on our side. That has to be some kind of advantage.

Anyway, people who respond emotionally tend not to be very effective. Being able to use one's brain, logic and reason is a great advantage. Understanding reality is a huge advantage.

 

[nammac]

Small world, I love pussy (cats) too!

Actually, Debbie should seek some serious psychological help with her cat obsession... That's certainly not what one would consider normal behavior... Bizzarroooo....

 

[etrain16]

Here she is making an eHarmony video....

She is going to die alone, covered in cats, who will eat the flesh from her bones, because they have no feelings whatsoever for her like she has for them.

Honestly, that looks like a phony baloney video to me, if not, anyone that answers that ad is completely responsible for the nasty mess they get themselves into

 

[Stomper]

It is a spoof video she did as a gag for here sister's b-day. That gal is about to land her own sitcom because of that video, from what I recently read.

I just thought that video would demonstrate the personality type mentioned above.... LMAO!