National Gun lovers don't have persuasive argument against legislation

[bbbass]

"They are perfectly satisfied allowing taxpayers who would never own a gun to supplement the administrative costs for their freedom."

That cuts both ways... How bout we charge a fee to non-gunowners for the cost of us supplementing police efforts to keep the peace, to stop violence, to respond when police cannot get there in time. How about we charge non-gunowners a fee for protecting their freedom from the possibilities of being overcome by a tyrannical government, a la Venezuala?

If we are to pay for our Second Amendment guaranteed rights, then where is the fee schedule for all the other BOR plus the other amendments? Shouldn't there then be a fee to not have troops quartered in your home? Shouldn't there be a fee to protect against unreasonable search and seizure? Shouldn't there be a fee for due process; for a fair and speedy trial by one's peers; a fee to confront one's accuser; a fee to not be the subject of cruel and unusual punishment; a fee to the descendants of slaves to support the cost of granting them freedom (a civil war); a fee to vote; a fee to keep the president from serving more than two terms; a fee to succeed a dead president; a fee when one turns 18 and gains the right to vote?

 

[Ura-Ki]

They say closing loopholes, I say infringements.

To answer his question of who would it hurt to increase the hassle and cost of owning a firearm, well poor people. The very people that could use a gun for self defense the most are hurt by those laws.

And claiming it saves human lives doesn't make it true. In fact the opposite would occur, more defensive use of guns saves lives.

It's a matter of physics, police can't be everywhere at once. Criminals with motive will commit crimes and only those at the place the crime occurs can stop it. Until transporter technology is invented this means the state can not defy the laws of physics and protect everyone.

It's up to the citizens to do so.

But sure Mr author of more ignorant propoganda you go ahead and advocate for a plan that requires law enforcement to defy the laws of physics and rob poor people of their right to bear arms.... Continue to infringe on our liberties and let's see where that goes.... Statistically and historically speaking it's going to end in death, lots of death. He is not helping.

You also have the Taxes and Fees to go among with it, and we all know how well that works, sooner or later, we end up like the fine folks in Sweden with a 75% tax liability!
Who EXACTLY is going to pay for all that additional Law Enforcement?
A cop on every corner to watch over us and keep us safe from ourselves! Sounds a little fantastical to me! Think how many cops that would be!

 

[titsonritz]

How "persuasive" do you suppose a 6" barreled .357 mag shoved down the throat would be?

 

[Caveman Jim]

A right to feel safe? Lmao wut.


You have a right to feel how ever the hell you wanna feel, and because its YOUR right YOU are PERSONALLY responsible for YOUR feelings not everyone else.

If you dont FEEL SAFE may i suggest some training classes and a firearm that you can shoot comfortably




Damn i almost went full eps with the caps lock

What a hoot there comes their "feels" again...
Your Feels don't Trump MY rights!!!!

 

[Flymph]

I understand that the notion is just talk... but often things that are talked about get circulated, then they get picked up, then they get some momentum as a movement, then supporters carry the torch. That's how we get new initiatives on the ballot. I really don't think your proposal would gather any followers, at this time. But as I said, I'd rather not be publicizing ideas that passionate antis could pick up and run with.

I agree with your second statement. I would add that people think their emotions are factual arguments in and of themselves. And will also look for anything that supports their theories and fears and call them "facts" (beware of statistics, which can be made to support any conclusion the author wants). Yes, people that think emotionally will most often not be swayed by logic/sense... therefore, as I said, those people, when efforts to educate and logical argument fails, need to be opposed and defeated.

Right now, gun owners seem to be on the unpopular side of the divide. Do we have the numbers to defeat the antis? IMO, on a national basis it's close but $$$ influence is being applied, and the bully pulpit of schools/colleges/universities continues.

Reminds me of the time I prompted a school walk out when one of our guidance counselors was being let go... they ended up keeping him.

I hear ya, I'll just keep my common sense stuff under the table until we can all have a rational conversation about it. By "we" I mean the anti-gun folks as well.

 

[American123]

I don't find anti freedom folks have a single persuasive argument to change my opinions on anything. That's the thing about "persuasive arguments" it really is only is a bunch of cheap talk until the use of violence is adopted, until then it can be ignored entirely as someone's opinion.

Sometimes violence is the answer, generally, that's the same time that someone is trying to force their opinions on you despite your verbal objections not to. At the end of the day, I don't care what someone else thinks, but I'm more than happy to reciprocate in kind anything beyond expressed opinions.

 

[Jonnyuma]

To answer his question of who would it hurt to increase the hassle and cost of owning a firearm... (?)

It's a pretty common theme among the gun-haters: "If you gun-snugglers really loved your guns so much, you would be willing to do whatever it takes to keep them"... obviously a stupid and obscenely vapid argument. So stupefyingly ignorant it embarrasses other dumb arguments.

Picking that bit of inanity apart without getting heated-up (just from the sheer gall of it) is next to impossible for me, so I won't do it. Suffice to say it's out there and it's pretty popular. Popular and also as vacuous and devoid of self-actualization as any anti-gunner's brain pan has ever been... making room in there for infinite hubris and narcissism must have been exhausting.

 

[Mygrainman]

If the pen is mightier than the sword, then social media is a WMD.
I don't feel safe knowing that people like that have the ability to spread ignorance on a national level... but you'll never see me asking for a valid argument as to why anybody's 1st amendment rights should regulated in any way.
Hardly seems fair does it?

 

[awshoot]

If the pen is mightier than the sword, then social media is a WMD.

That needs to be on a bumper sticker.

 

[Mygrainman]

That needs to be on a bumper sticker.

 

[Goosebrown]

I don't actually need a convincing argument because it's not a negotiation. I have rights and to limit them you need a lot more than a feeling.

You need 67 senators and 38 states to approve. That isn't going to happen

 

[clearconscience]

the guy claims its "unfair" but whats actually "unfair" is that the 2nd amendment takes a back seat to all our other rights. WHY has it become a second tier right? a RIGHT is a RIGHT. not a negotiation.


yes. i am fired up now.

Well it's unfair when we use facts and common sense.
I mean how can they win an argument when we prove ourselves right all the time.

 

[etrain16]

Didn't click....


Just kidding, I did click, just wanted to see what it's like to be @Certaindeaf for a minute.


So, to summarize the opinion piece - and that's all it is, an opinion No facts were presented in defense of their argument. The summary is this: we have laws already, the laws, via the government, failed and people died. So the only obvious step forward is to add more laws, which the government will fail to enforce anyway, and people will still die. But I'm happier because I've phucked over law-abiding gun owners.

Kiss my backside a-hole. No more laws.

 

[Jonnyuma]

Kiss my backside a-hole. No more law

Absolutely agree.
I've given up on trying to persuade people... if they're anti-gun then that's just what they are. I can argue, present facts, DESTROY their rationale from three or four different directions, but I do it recreationally now.
I have as much chance of changing a closed mind as they do changing mine... 0.0.

On some fundamental topics I have learned to just say, "You are wrong" without citing numbers. When they say, "Yeah... but what about THIS...?!!", I'll smack it down with some quickie-sh*t that's easily verifiable (Obama rhetoric, debunked Kellerman "study", etc), but it doesn't necessarily change anyone's mind and/or heart.

Actually, in the Trump era, my most effective "defense" against the "Only police and military... " argument is to say, "So you trust the government now?"... "...and the police... ?"

The answer is universally, "no". But also, by then, I've lost interest in the nincompoop and moved on to more interesting conversation.

 

[dcfranzen]

There are plenty of laws that have been enacted by misguided politicians; then, ignored by the people. Gun control legislation may be the 21st century's prohibition that even the sheeple will ignore.

 

[turbo_vanner]

do you guys purposely spin in circles or just not get it? From an anit's perspective, limiting the choice of guns we can legally have still allows us the right to bear an arm, neutered as it may be, and form a militia. The right to bear (approved) arms still exists, and is fine, from their perspective.

From that same perspective, what do you think they think a 'well regulated' militia means? It probably means lots of regulations on what they can arm themselves with. Again, a-ok from their perspective.

Until gun owners arguments address these perspectives, no we don't have strong arguments. Threads like these are another reason gun owners get the stereotype they do, and pointing a .357 in someones face to make a point does not help.

 

[dcfranzen]

Unless you're a card-carrying member of the Confiscation Party, there is no guarantee that legislation and enforcement writs will secure the cooperation and compliance from those folks who deem the laws to be unconstitutional. Buying different weapons is not the solution IMO.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Maybe instead of a "persuasive argument against legislation"* ...
How about an active persuasive argument for owning a firearm...And use these thoughts , facts , opinions on those folks that vote for anti-gun legislation.

I am not talking about the Feinstein's or Bloomberg's etc...Arguing against those who have closed minds or an agenda that they serve , no matter what , is useless.

I am speaking of the regular Joe voters who listen to and vote for representatives who are anti gun.
These folks that may be swayed by a rational "persuasive" argument are the ones that I would suggest , the arguments go to...

While I know that it is difficult to change someone's mind and behavior , it can be done...I do it every day at work.

*Please note that I am not saying to not fight against more anti gun legislation , that would be harmful for sure.
I am saying that a more proactive approach to the average person , may be of benefit.
Andy

 

[DB is Here]

From an anit's perspective, limiting the choice of guns we can legally have still allows us the right to bear an arm, neutered as it may be

Then to exercise the 1st Amendment, they may use 1 social site that we shall determine. Would they understand the argument? I'd think by reframing the argument it would help.

 

[dcfranzen]

I liken today's Anti-gun Movement to the early 20th Century Temperance Movement in the United States of America. Temperance means restraint or moderation, but for those card-carrying TMers 100 years ago it meant no alcohol whatsoever.