National Gun lovers don't have persuasive argument against legislation

[turbo_vanner]

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.

The internet is not a public place, websites are not public, and you and I do not have guaranteed access to any website or phone app. This is currently being legislated on as well, and its republican congress members who would like to restrict internet access and information.

More to your point, so what? If a large enough majority of people and their representatives want to change the bill of rights or amendments, there is a process for that, and that majority will reap what they sew.

 

[DB is Here]

The internet is not a public place, websites are not public, and you and I do not have guaranteed access to any website or phone app. This is currently being legislated on too actually, and its republican congress members who would like to restrict internet access and information.

My point was that if we showed restricting or infringing on another right if they'd see how that could "do harm" to any of our Rights. Just a thought.

 

[turbo_vanner]

My point was that if we showed restricting or infringing on another right if they'd see how that could "do harm" to any of our Rights. Just a thought.

I'm sure if we restricted or infringed upon a right they are in favor of, they wouldn't like it... probably because they view said right from a different perspective.

We wouldn't have to worry about their perspective though, since in this hypothetical situation, we had enough people and power to restrict or infringe in the first place.

Anti's don't see the argument from our perspective, so they don't listen to 'facts' that come from our perspective, because they're really just opinions.

 

[DB is Here]

Anti's don't see the argument from our perspective, so they don't listen to 'facts' that come from our perspective, because they're really just opinions.

I've only spoken to a few Liberals about this, most if given an unemotional walk through the facts are open to the conversation. IMO anti's won't listen to reason nor facts, and I've stopped trying to reason w/ them.

 

[turbo_vanner]

I've only spoken to a few Liberals about this, most if given an unemotional walk through the facts are open to the conversation. IMO anti's won't listen to reason nor facts, and I've stopped trying to reason w/ them.

And that's the whole issue, I think. Both sides have the evidence they want to support the perspectives they choose to believe.

I will say as a young person, I do have a lot of liberal friends who don't care about firearm laws at all, and are receptive to the things I say. Unfortunately, gun laws come packaged with the candidates they like. That makes any left leaning, yet ambivalent to gun issues voter, cast a vote for anti-gun legislators. There's no way these folks would throw away everything they're voting for just for the gun rights they are ambivalent towards.

 

[dcfranzen]

Another unfortunate fact about politicians is they are bullied into positions they know their constituent oppose so they can gain support for issues their constituents need addressed, e.g., people living in rural areas needing support for farm bills or roadway improvements. Our legislatures are controlled by large urban area representatives who are controlled by their political party who are controlled by campaign contributors - those rich white folks that want the money train to keep stopping at their bank and not yours.

 

[DB is Here]

And that's the whole issue, I think. Both sides have the evidence they want to support the perspectives they choose to believe.

i don't believe that's correct as I'm still willing to talk, seems those that are stuck in the echo chamber won't even have the conversation. Just my observation...

 

[Jonnyuma]

Maybe instead of a "persuasive argument against legislation"* ...
How about an active persuasive argument for owning a firearm...

I believe we have persuasive arguments for owning a firearm. I really think the onus lies with the anti-gun movement to make a persuasive argument for further restrictions. If you can't make that case then we should err on the side of freedom... ALWAYS.
For example: I recently read an article that addressed the safety concerns of interstate truckers... perils faced from within the law as well as outside of it concerning concealed carry. Even as an interstate commercial driver myself I found the carve-outs for people engaging in interstate commerce objectionable and unacceptable. If I was to have a motto (which I don't) it would be, "When in doubt, REMOVE THE RESTRICTION... for EVERYONE.".

I will say as a young person, I do have a lot of liberal friends who don't care about firearm laws at all,

That right there is a huge problem... the ambivalent far outnumber the rabid pro- and anti-gun population. A lot of people, most people, just don't care, and will vote on other issues. Even a lot of "conservatives" don't pay attention to 2A issues and think that so-called Universal Background Checks mandated and administrated by the federal government are a good idea... they just don't care. They may (or may not) be able to quote Article 1, Section 8 of The Constitution for rote but they have no idea what it means. They may cite the "General Welfare Clause*" (nonexistent) as an impetus for the federal government to do as it sees fit to promote the general welfare of "The People". They may not understand that the 10A includes the phrase that says that all powers not prohibited to the feds are delegated to the States "OR THE PEOPLE"... if The Constitution (state or federal) does not grant or allow the government (state or federal) permission to do it, it's unconstitutional AND ILLEGAL.

Ignorance is only blissful for the ignorant. The rest of us pay.

*Often cited as an excuse for the federal government to radically exceed its power.
"...promote the general welfare" appears in the preamble, not the body of the text. As such it is not a clause, but a statement of intent and exists only within the parameters of the document's 18 enumerated powers of the federal government

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I believe we have persuasive arguments for owning a firearm. I really think the onus lies with the anti-gun movement to make a persuasive argument for further restrictions. If you can't make that case then we should err on the side of freedom... ALWAYS.
For example: I recently read an article that addressed the safety concerns of interstate truckers... perils faced from within the law as well as outside of it concerning concealed carry. Even as an interstate commercial driver myself I found the carve-outs for people engaging in interstate commerce objectionable and unacceptable. If I was to have a motto (which I don't) it would be, "When in doubt, REMOVE THE RESTRICTION... for EVERYONE.".

Very true , for you , but not everyone thinks like you do...hence my comment of making persuasive arguments for gun ownership , to other folks who are open minded , but may think differently than you or I.
Andy

 

[awshoot]

... 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. ...

Next time you run into that type ask them "Folgers or Yuban -- you shouldn't have a right to select amongst all that the market produces. Pick one of those two and be happy you got any coffee at all."

 

[awshoot]

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.

And like prohibitions everywhere, it provided a revenue source for gangs. And since gangs can't settle their disputes in court (being engaged in illegal enterprise and all that), they do so by violence. Banning guns then could be expected to increase violence, not reduce it.

 

[Caveman Jim]

We don't need no stink ing persuasive arguments!!!
Said like the famous saying "we don't need no stink ing badges"....

 

[RedRover]

Preaching to the choir.

We can all circle-jerk here 'cause we're on the same team.

Therein lies a problem. Conversations in public about firearms in a positive light (for those of us in these so-called 'blue' states/cities) has become a social taboo. Being a firearms enthusiast is akin to being a member of a secret (shunned) club. We've been pushed into the closet.

We as responsible firearms owners have also been conditioned not to talk openly about our collections, not only for the aviodance of being mislabeled as a 'nut', but also for the justifiable concern of theft.

When out in public talking with random people, often there's the *hints* dropped...to eventually, "Oh you like guns too?"...and then the guards are let down.

The 2A community needs to do some serious work on P.R. Not amongst ourselves, but amongst our non-firearms owning friends and neighbors(who may not necessarily be antis, but who may be easily swayed to be antis through misinformation and/or political affiliations and leanings).

It is these people that will ultimately be the most important (swing)group as to whether we get to keep our rights from getting trampled further and further in these 'blue-controlled' locales.

The right to self-defense is something that almost anyone can identify with. To restrict that right is a direct threat to public-safety.

We have to be smarter than those whose goal is to demonize us and marginalize us out of existence. The need to be positive examples as firearms owners, and to openly identify as such is crucial to allay the misrepresentations surrounding the 2A community.....A concerted effort to move beyond simply trying to remind the public that 99.99% of responsible law-abiding firearms owners are friends and neighbors who aren't bloodlusting and hellbent on planning the next mass-murder.

"Cold dead hands" Heston might get the troops rallied, but it's the 20 y.o. single mother with the violent ex, and why her right to self-defense ought to be protected -- that is the image that will garner a better understanding among the rest. If 5 rounds is enough, then why ought LEOs be exempt from such restrictions?

A U.S. where only LEOs and criminals have firearms will look a lot more (and will have murder rates) akin to Brazil, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean than it will the oft-compared so-called industrialized (yet homogenous) countries of Japan, Norway and Denmark -- Countries that don't have the same pre-histories of indigenous displacement, slavery and colonialism as those in the Western Hemisphere(such as the U.S.)

 

[bentoncity]

So has ANYONE written a letter to the author, Dahleen Glanton and ministered to her in a civil manner to "hopefully" educate her? bubbleguming here is not a solution because you're preaching to the choir.
OR? possibly going here..
Letters to the editor, email [email protected]
Op-ed submissions, email [email protected]

Google this individual and read her 'feeds' on whatever social media you use. The woman is an absolute nut-case.
I honestly thought about sending her some info that would be educational but realized, after reading her 'opinions', you can't fix stupid.

As in....Ya don't tug on Superman's cape, ya don't spit into the wind, ya don't pull the mask off the 'ol Lone Ranger..& my TY to Mr. Jim Croce.

IMHO it serves little to no purpose for us to vent here if we're not defending our position (s) by addressing this type of false narrative in the public. That means writing to whom/what ever to voice opposing views with factual data and NOT opinionated rhetoric!

Do I believe this will work and change a bunch of peoples minds? Nope! Probably never will for the close minded individuals and public venues (tv, newspapers, radio, social media whatever)) that adhere to a false narrative that all gun owners are 'crazies'. Never mind the millions of weapons, high capacity mags & hundreds of thousands of legal/lawful gun owners out there that have never committed a crime.. that's factual data that needs to be never known by the public..

What I want to read:
Hundreds of thousands of legal/lawful gun owners with high capacity magazines killed no one yesterday!

What the news wants:
Gunman kills x amount @ school/mall/church

What the public hears:
Gunman kills x amount @ school/mall/church

What's the reality:
Reporting by anti 1A, 2A individuals/organizations fails to provide all the facts

Never the less, I will be writing/submitting an opinion to the news agency with a different set of views. Whether they choose to print it is ? I would encourage everyone here to respond as well.

End of Story!

Dan

 

[arakboss]

LOL

They cry about the right to "feel safe"...sorry pumpkin Liberty is a bit dangerous, deal with it.

This is exactly right "liberty is a bit dangerous, deal with it." Most of these firearm restriction laws sacrifice freedoms to gain a perceived sense of safety. When I have suggested using this argument in the past, I was told that would be tone deaf. It likely isn't an arguement that will accepted by antis anyways and probably not by many neutrals either. So when fighting a particular law we are left with trying to find arguments that are not tone deaf and that is often difficult, unless the law is really insane like SB 978-5. But in the case of laws like SB 941 and gun storage laws it will be much more difficult to find arguments against them that aren't based on Liberty is a bit dangerous, deal with it.

Edit: It doesn't help us that the SCOTUS has restrained our rights and gave the antis plenty of "legal" reach to limit our rights. Even when the SCOTUS sees them overstep, they often don't act to reign them in. On the rare occasion when the SCOTUS does reign in some goverment authority they don't make a person responsible only the agency or goverment institution. If legislators, city council members, etc were personally held financially responsible for violating our rights maybe they would step more carefully.

 

[Jonnyuma]

Next time you run into that type ask them "Folgers or Yuban --

Uuuhhh... nope: Black Rifle Coffee Co. Best still west of Camp Perry*

*That is not their slogan, I just made it up. They're welcome to use it, just send me a pound and we'll call it square.

Conversations in public about firearms in a positive light (for those of us in these so-called 'blue' states/cities) has become a social taboo.

Embrace the taboo, be the gun owner they've never heard about... be polite, be informative, and be ready to prove their force-fed phony "statistics" wrong.
You must also be willing and ready to walk away if things take a (seriouly) bad turn because nothing makes an idealogue happier than confirmation bias. An angry pro2A guy or gal spouting-off about "Cold dead hands" and proclaiming, "It's my RIGHT!" is exactly what they want to see. While neither of those things are untrue, they are not what could be called persuasive.
I'm not singling you out, I'm sure you have constructed a series of arguments and stats to put the lie to the anti2A crowd's talking points. Same as I have, same as many people here have. I'm speaking generally because I've seen what they do... I used to post fairly regularly on MDA and Everytown's FB pages... logical and factual information, something that is sorely lacking on social media. I was banned pretty quickly while the profane and abusive pro2A posters continued-on to post their conspiracy theories, tirades, and demands. It's pretty obvious that the Bloomberg shill sites were only interested in cultivating echo-chamber "likes", digital masturbation, and donations.

 

[best defense]

Just another snowflake gun grabber who wants us to lay down and roll over. What a gutless wonder is doing commenting on this site is beyond me.

 

[Barry Hacker]

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.

How about we give jail time to all lawmakers that try to pass laws that go against the Constitution?

 

[Barry Hacker]

How about we give jail time to all lawmakers that try to pass laws that go against the Constitution?

And such lawmakers should be permanently labeled "enemies of the state" and loose all of their rights to vote among other things as well

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

None of the proposed legislation actually stops crime.. that's enough of an argument.

Not to mention, a biased article felt the need to use a pejorative tone when calling second amendment supporters and general firearm enthusiasts "gun lovers".. that right there discredits their (the author) opinion as being rational in any way shape or form.