so heres the story, some girl posted on a newschannel facebook page "why should people be allowed to own assault rifles" so i messaged her a non confrontational little speach on how its our right and for a militia etc etc. She then messaged me back in a mean hateful long message about how stupid i am and im just a kid. So gun nuts, this is your thread to vent about your encounters with anti-gun people.
- Thread starter mrbooks10
- Start date
Re: dealing with anti gun people
I don't talk to anti gun people... period
I don't talk to anti gun people... period
Re: dealing with anti gun people
I went out with and eventually married an anti-gun person.
Now she goes to the skeet range with me to "push the button" to throw the clays, goes to the rifle range 1-2 times a year with me to put some rounds though the rimfires, let's me reload in the living room (and one time got sucked into helping me prep brass acting as the primer pocket cleaning volunteer), says "yes dear, that's a nice rifle/scope/widget you just bought" when I show off new toys, corrects my form when I'm dry firing my evil black rifles prone in the family room, etc.
How?
- listen to her view points, treat them like they're valid from her viewpoint (because they are)
- understand the underlying "fear thoughts" that makes her keep those negative view points
- over time, logically break down the fear thoughts and show why they're not really that scary
- loop back around and show that now that her fear thoughts aren't valid that she should question her original view points
- let her draw her own new conclusions
and...
- be an example of safe, responsible gun ownership
- teach her how to be safe, stress that all the time
- acknowledge that guns 'can be dangerous' just like any other tool, and use that to reinforce why we do things the way we do
- don't push too fast, let her learn at her own pace
Yea, it took me a while but now I've converted her, and some of her friends. Now there are at least 5 SF liberals that no longer think guns are all evil and if not share our viewpoint, at least understand it enough to not knee jerk into "ban everything!" reactions. I've also shown at least 4 women how to shoot. Figuring no guy is going to be anti-gun if his woman isn't, that's 8 more people I've turned away from the dark side of anti-gun.
Not saying you should marry all anti-gun people, just saying it is possible to turn people around.
Don't give up!
I went out with and eventually married an anti-gun person.
Now she goes to the skeet range with me to "push the button" to throw the clays, goes to the rifle range 1-2 times a year with me to put some rounds though the rimfires, let's me reload in the living room (and one time got sucked into helping me prep brass acting as the primer pocket cleaning volunteer), says "yes dear, that's a nice rifle/scope/widget you just bought" when I show off new toys, corrects my form when I'm dry firing my evil black rifles prone in the family room, etc.
How?
- listen to her view points, treat them like they're valid from her viewpoint (because they are)
- understand the underlying "fear thoughts" that makes her keep those negative view points
- over time, logically break down the fear thoughts and show why they're not really that scary
- loop back around and show that now that her fear thoughts aren't valid that she should question her original view points
- let her draw her own new conclusions
and...
- be an example of safe, responsible gun ownership
- teach her how to be safe, stress that all the time
- acknowledge that guns 'can be dangerous' just like any other tool, and use that to reinforce why we do things the way we do
- don't push too fast, let her learn at her own pace
Yea, it took me a while but now I've converted her, and some of her friends. Now there are at least 5 SF liberals that no longer think guns are all evil and if not share our viewpoint, at least understand it enough to not knee jerk into "ban everything!" reactions. I've also shown at least 4 women how to shoot. Figuring no guy is going to be anti-gun if his woman isn't, that's 8 more people I've turned away from the dark side of anti-gun.
Not saying you should marry all anti-gun people, just saying it is possible to turn people around.
Don't give up!
Re: dealing with anti gun people
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mrbooks10</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so heres the story, some girl posted on a newschannel facebook page "why should people be allowed to own assault rifles" so i messaged her a non confrontational little speach on how its our right and for a militia etc etc. She then messaged me back in a mean hateful long message about how stupid i am and im just a kid. So gun nuts, this is your thread to vent about your encounters with anti-gun people. </div></div>
send her / them this and end the discussion -- if they reply with an argument then you know your trying to debate with a genuine idiot and the best thing to do is to ignore everything they have to present to you henceforth
"Gun-control laws do not control crime because crimes are not committed by guns; they are committed by criminals. Criminals will always have guns because they do not obey laws, including anti-gun laws. Those without guns are easy prey for criminals with guns. Gun control encourages crime.
"The right to bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights, not to deter crime, but to deter oppressive government. Just governments honor and protect the right to bear arms. Oppressive governments fear and prohibit the right to bear arms.
"Guns are dangerous. The only thing more dangerous is not having them."
-- G. Edward Griffin
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mrbooks10</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so heres the story, some girl posted on a newschannel facebook page "why should people be allowed to own assault rifles" so i messaged her a non confrontational little speach on how its our right and for a militia etc etc. She then messaged me back in a mean hateful long message about how stupid i am and im just a kid. So gun nuts, this is your thread to vent about your encounters with anti-gun people. </div></div>
send her / them this and end the discussion -- if they reply with an argument then you know your trying to debate with a genuine idiot and the best thing to do is to ignore everything they have to present to you henceforth
"Gun-control laws do not control crime because crimes are not committed by guns; they are committed by criminals. Criminals will always have guns because they do not obey laws, including anti-gun laws. Those without guns are easy prey for criminals with guns. Gun control encourages crime.
"The right to bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights, not to deter crime, but to deter oppressive government. Just governments honor and protect the right to bear arms. Oppressive governments fear and prohibit the right to bear arms.
"Guns are dangerous. The only thing more dangerous is not having them."
-- G. Edward Griffin
Re: dealing with anti gun people
I for one never had a problem with the anti-gun crowd. Mainly because all the ones I know pretty much keep their feelings about guns to themselves. I also get a kick out of inviting an anti-gun friend to go shooting and watching them start to get an interest in guns.
So yeah, if you meet up with an anti-gun person in real life, how about doing the proper thing and introduce them to the shooting world via real life range time? Not video games.
I for one never had a problem with the anti-gun crowd. Mainly because all the ones I know pretty much keep their feelings about guns to themselves. I also get a kick out of inviting an anti-gun friend to go shooting and watching them start to get an interest in guns.
So yeah, if you meet up with an anti-gun person in real life, how about doing the proper thing and introduce them to the shooting world via real life range time? Not video games.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
My father in law actually cries when we discuss new weapons my preteen boys like to shoot. He thinks they should be encouraging female boxing in the Olympics however. I allow my sons to dispute respectfully with him as they are 10 fold more logical. This has not changed his mind, but he does now at least understand the value we place on our God given rights, and the right to protect ourselves. He has actually held some of the weapons when presented, and no longer says I am crazy. (He should have thought of that when I married his daughter.) Anyway, we have a mutual understanding, accomplished by respecting opinions, and discussing reality, which by the way is not Hollywood, where he places his interests of all things.
My father in law actually cries when we discuss new weapons my preteen boys like to shoot. He thinks they should be encouraging female boxing in the Olympics however. I allow my sons to dispute respectfully with him as they are 10 fold more logical. This has not changed his mind, but he does now at least understand the value we place on our God given rights, and the right to protect ourselves. He has actually held some of the weapons when presented, and no longer says I am crazy. (He should have thought of that when I married his daughter.) Anyway, we have a mutual understanding, accomplished by respecting opinions, and discussing reality, which by the way is not Hollywood, where he places his interests of all things.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
The right to bear arms is a right, and not an oblgation; regardless of references to pre-Constitutional Continental Militia Acts.
All persons are entitled to refrain from exercising their firearms ownership rights.
No person, in office or not, is entitled to condemn or harass those who do.
People who want the opposite of what I want are capable and free to engage in the elective process. It is by that means alone that such issues may (I repeat, may...) legislatively reflect the people's intent.
Is the legislative process flawed? Frequently.
But it is still the only legitimate means.
I view those who brazenly and brashly confront others on this issue, from either side, as being more interested in the attention than in the facts. It's not, in any way, anything I choose to engage them in. Their soapboxes only have room for one.
When I expound my thoughts on firearnms ownership, I do it here; where there can be no doubt that I can find an agrument on anything I have to say. I can at least expect a Moderator to read what's on the forum. I can find no such moderation when perched on a bar stool.
Greg
The right to bear arms is a right, and not an oblgation; regardless of references to pre-Constitutional Continental Militia Acts.
All persons are entitled to refrain from exercising their firearms ownership rights.
No person, in office or not, is entitled to condemn or harass those who do.
People who want the opposite of what I want are capable and free to engage in the elective process. It is by that means alone that such issues may (I repeat, may...) legislatively reflect the people's intent.
Is the legislative process flawed? Frequently.
But it is still the only legitimate means.
I view those who brazenly and brashly confront others on this issue, from either side, as being more interested in the attention than in the facts. It's not, in any way, anything I choose to engage them in. Their soapboxes only have room for one.
When I expound my thoughts on firearnms ownership, I do it here; where there can be no doubt that I can find an agrument on anything I have to say. I can at least expect a Moderator to read what's on the forum. I can find no such moderation when perched on a bar stool.
Greg
Re: dealing with anti gun people
There is no point debating a topic such as gun control or any other topic where the two parties are <span style="text-decoration: underline">ideologues</span>. However, every anti-gun person I've ever encountered knew exactly dick about guns and had a very warped perception of how they worked and what the were capable of. I see these people as cattle, puppets of the media's propaganda and leave it at that. Though, I do admit these people make me very mad. It's maddening that they would love to take away a fundamental right, all the while not knowing that the point of gun ownership is to keep the government that the are also usually bitching about in check.
There is no point debating a topic such as gun control or any other topic where the two parties are <span style="text-decoration: underline">ideologues</span>. However, every anti-gun person I've ever encountered knew exactly dick about guns and had a very warped perception of how they worked and what the were capable of. I see these people as cattle, puppets of the media's propaganda and leave it at that. Though, I do admit these people make me very mad. It's maddening that they would love to take away a fundamental right, all the while not knowing that the point of gun ownership is to keep the government that the are also usually bitching about in check.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
Absolutely! The term "willing fool" springs immediately to mind.
Absolutely! The term "willing fool" springs immediately to mind.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
Well I found trying in anyway to convince a leftist liberal of the true God, yes God, given right of man to own, educate, and exercise our right to defend ourselves and others from any form of tyrany thru the rights agreed upon thru the second amendment is strangely similar to a farmer trying to teach his pig to talk. All that seems to get accomplished is frustrating the farmer, and confusing and bewildering the pigs to no end. And now the farmer has to go to work and feed the pigs so someone can get some rest.
Well I found trying in anyway to convince a leftist liberal of the true God, yes God, given right of man to own, educate, and exercise our right to defend ourselves and others from any form of tyrany thru the rights agreed upon thru the second amendment is strangely similar to a farmer trying to teach his pig to talk. All that seems to get accomplished is frustrating the farmer, and confusing and bewildering the pigs to no end. And now the farmer has to go to work and feed the pigs so someone can get some rest.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
The answer is to educate in a manner that is non-confrontational.
It must be presented in a way that allows them to come to the conclusion that gun control is not the solution on their own.
If they discover this on their own and are not told, they will save face and feel enlightened as opposed to feeling defeated.
If I hear one more person use the term "Sporting Purposes" when talking about the 2nd Amendment and gun legislation, I will scream...
There is nothing "Sporting" about the second amendment.
The founding fathers were not concerned with protecting ones right to hunt.
It all boils down to firearms being the ultimate safeguard against tyranny.
The answer is to educate in a manner that is non-confrontational.
It must be presented in a way that allows them to come to the conclusion that gun control is not the solution on their own.
If they discover this on their own and are not told, they will save face and feel enlightened as opposed to feeling defeated.
If I hear one more person use the term "Sporting Purposes" when talking about the 2nd Amendment and gun legislation, I will scream...
There is nothing "Sporting" about the second amendment.
The founding fathers were not concerned with protecting ones right to hunt.
It all boils down to firearms being the ultimate safeguard against tyranny.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
When talking to anti-gun folk, I leave the 2nd Amendment and home defense portion out of the argument completely. They are expecting that approach and base their whole opinion against that. I just talk about the recreational aspect about gun ownership. Also, inviting them to the range works wonders, because nothing breaks down barriers better that familiarity and education. A lot(most) people that have a negative attitude towards guns, have never been around them or have not been shown how safe they are when handled with the right attitude.
When talking to anti-gun folk, I leave the 2nd Amendment and home defense portion out of the argument completely. They are expecting that approach and base their whole opinion against that. I just talk about the recreational aspect about gun ownership. Also, inviting them to the range works wonders, because nothing breaks down barriers better that familiarity and education. A lot(most) people that have a negative attitude towards guns, have never been around them or have not been shown how safe they are when handled with the right attitude.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
I just show them a photo of a pile of dead holicost victims with them meat starved from their bones. If they want to debate further I take myself out of the conversation as they have proven themselves to be brain dead.
I just show them a photo of a pile of dead holicost victims with them meat starved from their bones. If they want to debate further I take myself out of the conversation as they have proven themselves to be brain dead.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eracer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Do you have a fire extinguisher in your house?"
"Why?" </div></div>
I get "No" more than "Yes" when I ask that question.
"I've never been in a fire and if I was, I'd just call 911. You're just paranoid."
FWIW, I have three in the house: garage, kitchen, reloading room. I should really get bigger ones, especially for the garage and reloading room.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eracer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Do you have a fire extinguisher in your house?"
"Why?" </div></div>
I get "No" more than "Yes" when I ask that question.
"I've never been in a fire and if I was, I'd just call 911. You're just paranoid."
FWIW, I have three in the house: garage, kitchen, reloading room. I should really get bigger ones, especially for the garage and reloading room.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
I agree completely about the fire extingusher. When seconds count, the firefighters are just minutes away.
People who don't need guns or fire extinguishers are often also the very first to find fault with the same folks they rely upon for their own safety. They admit no responsibility for their own welfare. Maybe also for the consequences of their own actions.
Ask them whether they prefer being the grasshopper or the ant. Oh please, please, Ms. Ant; here it is Winter already and I have no food or shelter. Please save me.
You could even ask them which one of you <span style="font-style: italic">is</span> the grasshopper and which <span style="font-style: italic">is</span> the ant.
Regardless of what they will answer, they are the grasshoppers. We are the ants; and I don't really feel any compulsion to either enlighten them, or come to their rescue.
They make their own beds, they sleep in them. It's none of my business.
If the Zombies or such ever come, they will suddenly really like the idea of personal firearms ownership.
There are no gun control advocates in foxholes. You can quibble about whether foxholes are a realistic part of our future; that still doesn't invalidate the initial premise.
Where do you think all those AK's in <span style="font-style: italic">Falling Skies</span> came from; our Dear Old Uncle Sugar? That show is definitely fiction, but the ratings seem to say it's at least plausible.
When they want that rifle, I <span style="font-style: italic">may</span> have a spare for them. I really do think that's the best time to argue against gun control; but waiting for that is probably not going to work. They will already be the ones who have our guns. They'll be very happy to have those guns once we no longer have ours.
I do not wonder whether I could trust those wonderful folks not to turn them back on me. I think I already know the answer to that question. It's something along the lines of 6 millon Jews can't be wrong.
Greg
I agree completely about the fire extingusher. When seconds count, the firefighters are just minutes away.
People who don't need guns or fire extinguishers are often also the very first to find fault with the same folks they rely upon for their own safety. They admit no responsibility for their own welfare. Maybe also for the consequences of their own actions.
Ask them whether they prefer being the grasshopper or the ant. Oh please, please, Ms. Ant; here it is Winter already and I have no food or shelter. Please save me.
You could even ask them which one of you <span style="font-style: italic">is</span> the grasshopper and which <span style="font-style: italic">is</span> the ant.
Regardless of what they will answer, they are the grasshoppers. We are the ants; and I don't really feel any compulsion to either enlighten them, or come to their rescue.
They make their own beds, they sleep in them. It's none of my business.
If the Zombies or such ever come, they will suddenly really like the idea of personal firearms ownership.
There are no gun control advocates in foxholes. You can quibble about whether foxholes are a realistic part of our future; that still doesn't invalidate the initial premise.
Where do you think all those AK's in <span style="font-style: italic">Falling Skies</span> came from; our Dear Old Uncle Sugar? That show is definitely fiction, but the ratings seem to say it's at least plausible.
When they want that rifle, I <span style="font-style: italic">may</span> have a spare for them. I really do think that's the best time to argue against gun control; but waiting for that is probably not going to work. They will already be the ones who have our guns. They'll be very happy to have those guns once we no longer have ours.
I do not wonder whether I could trust those wonderful folks not to turn them back on me. I think I already know the answer to that question. It's something along the lines of 6 millon Jews can't be wrong.
Greg
Re: dealing with anti gun people
I go with "lets get rid of all weapons and we can be perfectly safe. Just look at our prison system, weapons are not allowed in there and look how safe it is". It goes back to morality, not gun control.
I go with "lets get rid of all weapons and we can be perfectly safe. Just look at our prison system, weapons are not allowed in there and look how safe it is". It goes back to morality, not gun control.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
(Bear with me, and take this more as an "idea" than literally)
My argument playing semi "devil advocate" is assualt weapons serve a purpose in military, LE and simular. They are overkill for Home Deffense and hunting. (i did not say they were'nt (fun) They are exotic toys.
A lamborghini (or simular race car) and a 1000++cc sport speed motorcycle are overkill as well if you look at safety and availibility of public transportation.
There are idiots on both ends, you have horrific car crashes from things like the gumball , you have school shootings and simular on the oppisite end
however both of these have responsible owners and a market. The key is this: you can own either if your not a f***ing idiot.
(Bear with me, and take this more as an "idea" than literally)
My argument playing semi "devil advocate" is assualt weapons serve a purpose in military, LE and simular. They are overkill for Home Deffense and hunting. (i did not say they were'nt (fun) They are exotic toys.
A lamborghini (or simular race car) and a 1000++cc sport speed motorcycle are overkill as well if you look at safety and availibility of public transportation.
There are idiots on both ends, you have horrific car crashes from things like the gumball , you have school shootings and simular on the oppisite end
however both of these have responsible owners and a market. The key is this: you can own either if your not a f***ing idiot.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
MGD,
One of the SCOTUS rulings (US vs. Miller) actually declared that the 2nd Amendment only applied to firearms that were suitable for military service.
That being said, weapons suitable for use in a Militia type environments should be protected.
This includes 100 round beta magazines and IMO NFA items.
It is very important that all gun owners educate themselves so that they can educate others on what the 2nd Amendment is and why it is there.
Home protection is not the primary purpose, protection of the country is.
MGD,
One of the SCOTUS rulings (US vs. Miller) actually declared that the 2nd Amendment only applied to firearms that were suitable for military service.
That being said, weapons suitable for use in a Militia type environments should be protected.
This includes 100 round beta magazines and IMO NFA items.
It is very important that all gun owners educate themselves so that they can educate others on what the 2nd Amendment is and why it is there.
Home protection is not the primary purpose, protection of the country is.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
There are a lot of good responses here. I had this letter e-mailed to me a couple years ago and liked what this guy had to say. It's probably old news for many of you but thought it was worth posting for this topic.
"The Gun Is Civilization" By Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
There are a lot of good responses here. I had this letter e-mailed to me a couple years ago and liked what this guy had to say. It's probably old news for many of you but thought it was worth posting for this topic.
"The Gun Is Civilization" By Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
Re: dealing with anti gun people
So your pro gun control just like like Adolf Hitler?
So your pro gun control just like like Adolf Hitler?
Re: dealing with anti gun people
My older brother (bless his logical heart) and I had a discussion a few years ago when the Clinton era assault weapons ban was going on. He asked what justification someone could have for needing a rifle that is designed to shoot people. Fair question.
So, my response was this:
If I am legally justified in using deadly force, I would prefer to have a tool designed to do the job efficiently. Just as I could probably haul a refigerator strapped onto the roof of a vehicle, it would make more sense for me to use a vehicle designed to to the job, like a pickup truck. It is the same for use of justified deadly force. I would rather not have to use a garden fork or a meat cleaver when a firearm designed for the job is available to me.
He was open minded enough to agree with that logic, but he still doesn't own a firearm.
My older brother (bless his logical heart) and I had a discussion a few years ago when the Clinton era assault weapons ban was going on. He asked what justification someone could have for needing a rifle that is designed to shoot people. Fair question.
So, my response was this:
If I am legally justified in using deadly force, I would prefer to have a tool designed to do the job efficiently. Just as I could probably haul a refigerator strapped onto the roof of a vehicle, it would make more sense for me to use a vehicle designed to to the job, like a pickup truck. It is the same for use of justified deadly force. I would rather not have to use a garden fork or a meat cleaver when a firearm designed for the job is available to me.
He was open minded enough to agree with that logic, but he still doesn't own a firearm.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Intrepid4576</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mrbooks10</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so heres the story, some girl posted on a newschannel facebook page "why should people be allowed to own assault rifles" so i messaged her a non confrontational little speach on how its our right and for a militia etc etc. She then messaged me back in a mean hateful long message about how stupid i am and im just a kid. So gun nuts, this is your thread to vent about your encounters with anti-gun people. </div></div>
send her / them this and end the discussion -- if they reply with an argument then you know your trying to debate with a genuine idiot and the best thing to do is to ignore everything they have to present to you henceforth
"Gun-control laws do not control crime because crimes are not committed by guns; they are committed by criminals. Criminals will always have guns because they do not obey laws, including anti-gun laws. Those without guns are easy prey for criminals with guns. Gun control encourages crime.
"The right to bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights, not to deter crime, but to deter oppressive government. Just governments honor and protect the right to bear arms. Oppressive governments fear and prohibit the right to bear arms.
"Guns are dangerous. The only thing more dangerous is not having them."
-- G. Edward Griffin
</div></div>
Sorry she blocked me, i would if i could
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Intrepid4576</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mrbooks10</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so heres the story, some girl posted on a newschannel facebook page "why should people be allowed to own assault rifles" so i messaged her a non confrontational little speach on how its our right and for a militia etc etc. She then messaged me back in a mean hateful long message about how stupid i am and im just a kid. So gun nuts, this is your thread to vent about your encounters with anti-gun people. </div></div>
send her / them this and end the discussion -- if they reply with an argument then you know your trying to debate with a genuine idiot and the best thing to do is to ignore everything they have to present to you henceforth
"Gun-control laws do not control crime because crimes are not committed by guns; they are committed by criminals. Criminals will always have guns because they do not obey laws, including anti-gun laws. Those without guns are easy prey for criminals with guns. Gun control encourages crime.
"The right to bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights, not to deter crime, but to deter oppressive government. Just governments honor and protect the right to bear arms. Oppressive governments fear and prohibit the right to bear arms.
"Guns are dangerous. The only thing more dangerous is not having them."
-- G. Edward Griffin
</div></div>
Sorry she blocked me, i would if i could
Re: dealing with anti gun people
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jayne</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I went out with and eventually married an anti-gun person.
Now she goes to the skeet range with me to "push the button" to throw the clays, goes to the rifle range 1-2 times a year with me to put some rounds though the rimfires, let's me reload in the living room (and one time got sucked into helping me prep brass acting as the primer pocket cleaning volunteer), says "yes dear, that's a nice rifle/scope/widget you just bought" when I show off new toys, corrects my form when I'm dry firing my evil black rifles prone in the family room, etc.
How?
- listen to her view points, treat them like they're valid from her viewpoint (because they are)
- understand the underlying "fear thoughts" that makes her keep those negative view points
- over time, logically break down the fear thoughts and show why they're not really that scary
- loop back around and show that now that her fear thoughts aren't valid that she should question her original view points
- let her draw her own new conclusions
and...
- be an example of safe, responsible gun ownership
- teach her how to be safe, stress that all the time
- acknowledge that guns 'can be dangerous' just like any other tool, and use that to reinforce why we do things the way we do
- don't push too fast, let her learn at her own pace
Yea, it took me a while but now I've converted her, and some of her friends. Now there are at least 5 SF liberals that no longer think guns are all evil and if not share our viewpoint, at least understand it enough to not knee jerk into "ban everything!" reactions. I've also shown at least 4 women how to shoot. Figuring no guy is going to be anti-gun if his woman isn't, that's 8 more people I've turned away from the dark side of anti-gun.
Not saying you should marry all anti-gun people, just saying it is possible to turn people around.
Don't give up!
</div></div>
Ding Ding Ding. This is what I do also. I really find my greatest triumphs in converting anti gunners. To me if I can take an anti and turn them into a pro, in effect I have converted two people at one time. I have done this many many times.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jayne</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I went out with and eventually married an anti-gun person.
Now she goes to the skeet range with me to "push the button" to throw the clays, goes to the rifle range 1-2 times a year with me to put some rounds though the rimfires, let's me reload in the living room (and one time got sucked into helping me prep brass acting as the primer pocket cleaning volunteer), says "yes dear, that's a nice rifle/scope/widget you just bought" when I show off new toys, corrects my form when I'm dry firing my evil black rifles prone in the family room, etc.
How?
- listen to her view points, treat them like they're valid from her viewpoint (because they are)
- understand the underlying "fear thoughts" that makes her keep those negative view points
- over time, logically break down the fear thoughts and show why they're not really that scary
- loop back around and show that now that her fear thoughts aren't valid that she should question her original view points
- let her draw her own new conclusions
and...
- be an example of safe, responsible gun ownership
- teach her how to be safe, stress that all the time
- acknowledge that guns 'can be dangerous' just like any other tool, and use that to reinforce why we do things the way we do
- don't push too fast, let her learn at her own pace
Yea, it took me a while but now I've converted her, and some of her friends. Now there are at least 5 SF liberals that no longer think guns are all evil and if not share our viewpoint, at least understand it enough to not knee jerk into "ban everything!" reactions. I've also shown at least 4 women how to shoot. Figuring no guy is going to be anti-gun if his woman isn't, that's 8 more people I've turned away from the dark side of anti-gun.
Not saying you should marry all anti-gun people, just saying it is possible to turn people around.
Don't give up!
</div></div>
Ding Ding Ding. This is what I do also. I really find my greatest triumphs in converting anti gunners. To me if I can take an anti and turn them into a pro, in effect I have converted two people at one time. I have done this many many times.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Maser</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I for one never had a problem with the anti-gun crowd. Mainly because all the ones I know pretty much keep their feelings about guns to themselves. I also get a kick out of inviting an anti-gun friend to go shooting and watching them start to get an interest in guns.
So yeah, if you meet up with an anti-gun person in real life, how about doing the proper thing and introduce them to the shooting world via real life range time? Not video games. </div></div>
This is a good idea and my sentiment exactly. Before the discussion gets heated, politely invite them to go shooting with you. Bring the .22 and lots of ammo, because they convert pretty damn quick. Take as many kids shooting as you can too, introduce them to responsible handling of firearms, not the Hollwyood shit. They will grow up and always question the anti's, and always question Hollywood's erroneous depiction of gun culture.
Just stay away from the zealous anti nuts. They are few and far between anyway, and they can't really be helped. Just take some comfort in knowing they are few, and really a fringe element of society that is probably smaller than the Wiccan community.
Cease Fire here in WA for instance, they have pretty small numbers. Just my one shooting club has more members. They hold "secret" meetings, so what does that tell you? That they live in this fantasy world where it is them against us, and we are a big armed Goliath and they are David. It is ridiculous, but true.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Maser</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I for one never had a problem with the anti-gun crowd. Mainly because all the ones I know pretty much keep their feelings about guns to themselves. I also get a kick out of inviting an anti-gun friend to go shooting and watching them start to get an interest in guns.
So yeah, if you meet up with an anti-gun person in real life, how about doing the proper thing and introduce them to the shooting world via real life range time? Not video games. </div></div>
This is a good idea and my sentiment exactly. Before the discussion gets heated, politely invite them to go shooting with you. Bring the .22 and lots of ammo, because they convert pretty damn quick. Take as many kids shooting as you can too, introduce them to responsible handling of firearms, not the Hollwyood shit. They will grow up and always question the anti's, and always question Hollywood's erroneous depiction of gun culture.
Just stay away from the zealous anti nuts. They are few and far between anyway, and they can't really be helped. Just take some comfort in knowing they are few, and really a fringe element of society that is probably smaller than the Wiccan community.
Cease Fire here in WA for instance, they have pretty small numbers. Just my one shooting club has more members. They hold "secret" meetings, so what does that tell you? That they live in this fantasy world where it is them against us, and we are a big armed Goliath and they are David. It is ridiculous, but true.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
My wife, she wasn't an anti, but she also was afraid of them. Freaked out when I told her I wanted to keep this Beretta I just bought at her apartment when we were dating. I couldn't take it on post, didn't want to keep in the arms room. She finally took it, but wouldn't touch it! I had to remove the barrel and take it with me to make her okay with it, but she still wasn't comfortable. But she married me, and I'm a big gun nut, I love shooting.
Fast foward today, a lot has happened, and now she carries her own 649 revolver. She's still not big into shooting, but she definitely isn't afraid of them and can operate an AR or a Glock better than many, but she really has a soft spot for those .357 Smith and Wesson revolvers.
She loves shooting .22's though, and once we get an integrally suppressed Mk3, then we will be able to have a lot of fun here in the back yard plinking and target shooting. I think she may get into it more then.
So I guess I took a fence sitter and turned her into someone who carries daily. I have introduced a lot of fence sitters to shooting. I hesitate to call them antis because they really only felt sympathetic to the antis. But yeah, taking non shooters shooting does us all a big favor. You want them to vote on your side, right?
My wife, she wasn't an anti, but she also was afraid of them. Freaked out when I told her I wanted to keep this Beretta I just bought at her apartment when we were dating. I couldn't take it on post, didn't want to keep in the arms room. She finally took it, but wouldn't touch it! I had to remove the barrel and take it with me to make her okay with it, but she still wasn't comfortable. But she married me, and I'm a big gun nut, I love shooting.
Fast foward today, a lot has happened, and now she carries her own 649 revolver. She's still not big into shooting, but she definitely isn't afraid of them and can operate an AR or a Glock better than many, but she really has a soft spot for those .357 Smith and Wesson revolvers.
She loves shooting .22's though, and once we get an integrally suppressed Mk3, then we will be able to have a lot of fun here in the back yard plinking and target shooting. I think she may get into it more then.
So I guess I took a fence sitter and turned her into someone who carries daily. I have introduced a lot of fence sitters to shooting. I hesitate to call them antis because they really only felt sympathetic to the antis. But yeah, taking non shooters shooting does us all a big favor. You want them to vote on your side, right?
Re: dealing with anti gun people
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Peloton</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are a lot of good responses here. I had this letter e-mailed to me a couple years ago and liked what this guy had to say. It's probably old news for many of you but thought it was worth posting for this topic.
"The Gun Is Civilization" By Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
</div></div>
This is an very good read. So I posted it on my facebook wall. Thanks for posting this.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Peloton</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are a lot of good responses here. I had this letter e-mailed to me a couple years ago and liked what this guy had to say. It's probably old news for many of you but thought it was worth posting for this topic.
"The Gun Is Civilization" By Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
</div></div>
This is an very good read. So I posted it on my facebook wall. Thanks for posting this.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KiZZ0ODnfNM"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KiZZ0ODnfNM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KiZZ0ODnfNM"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KiZZ0ODnfNM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
B
boomer81
Guest
Re: dealing with anti gun people
Call me cold blooded. but I got sick of all the stock explanations. So I hit em with a scientific approach. and use libs beloved Darwin against them. This is my opinion. but This approach works because most people with anti-gun beliefs come from a more intellectual or background
They see guns as barbaric and beneath them. They see the object as the problem. When the problem is evil in the hearts of men and no mater how hard you try you can't make that go away.
You can't hit them with the 2nd. Because again they see it as antiquated and beneath there refined sensibilities. That's old fashioned. We've evolved past that. Any type of patriotic response is going to be met with total disdain.
In my belief because alot of the anti gun libs that are in the 60-70 age range that have been in power positions and have dominated the educational system for the last 45 years. Are the the children of the generation that sacrificed the most and held the values of patriotism the highest. And in some way's it's a form of adolescent rebellion that they have passed on. so when you bring up the 2nd the feel like there being lectured to by their dad.
Usually what I do goes something like this.
you don't bother me because your beneath me in the chain of evolution for my firearm has made me a more advanced animal than you. Just understand that there are people out there that do not have the morals or value of human life that I do. But you are lower on the food chain than a armed law abiding citizen or criminal. So your opinion does not factor into the equation. You might as well be fish. Just hope that there is enough of a counter balance in nature of people like me to keep the food chain in order or there will be nothing but predators. And they will eat you before me.
That usually shuts them the fuck up.
Call me cold blooded. but I got sick of all the stock explanations. So I hit em with a scientific approach. and use libs beloved Darwin against them. This is my opinion. but This approach works because most people with anti-gun beliefs come from a more intellectual or background
They see guns as barbaric and beneath them. They see the object as the problem. When the problem is evil in the hearts of men and no mater how hard you try you can't make that go away.
You can't hit them with the 2nd. Because again they see it as antiquated and beneath there refined sensibilities. That's old fashioned. We've evolved past that. Any type of patriotic response is going to be met with total disdain.
In my belief because alot of the anti gun libs that are in the 60-70 age range that have been in power positions and have dominated the educational system for the last 45 years. Are the the children of the generation that sacrificed the most and held the values of patriotism the highest. And in some way's it's a form of adolescent rebellion that they have passed on. so when you bring up the 2nd the feel like there being lectured to by their dad.
Usually what I do goes something like this.
you don't bother me because your beneath me in the chain of evolution for my firearm has made me a more advanced animal than you. Just understand that there are people out there that do not have the morals or value of human life that I do. But you are lower on the food chain than a armed law abiding citizen or criminal. So your opinion does not factor into the equation. You might as well be fish. Just hope that there is enough of a counter balance in nature of people like me to keep the food chain in order or there will be nothing but predators. And they will eat you before me.
That usually shuts them the fuck up.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
I believe it is of the utmost importance that we all act as good ambassadors for shooting sports. I take it upon myself to educate people in a non-confrontational way, and I especially love treating them to range trips. Have a turned a Brady Campaign member into an M4 blazing range commando. No. But I have educated people about how guns really work and show them that what they see in the movies is almost always wrong. If they are a good sport, I have them shoot one of the big bad black rifles first, then I move to the M1 Garand.
Given, that I'm a huge liberal-commie-pussy-socialist-douche bag, as are most of my friends, I've spent a huge amount of time as an ambassador for guns. So far its been very rewarding, and often I get the response, "[w]ell I trust you, but what about all those crazy people." I consider even a statement such as this a small victory.
I believe it is of the utmost importance that we all act as good ambassadors for shooting sports. I take it upon myself to educate people in a non-confrontational way, and I especially love treating them to range trips. Have a turned a Brady Campaign member into an M4 blazing range commando. No. But I have educated people about how guns really work and show them that what they see in the movies is almost always wrong. If they are a good sport, I have them shoot one of the big bad black rifles first, then I move to the M1 Garand.
Given, that I'm a huge liberal-commie-pussy-socialist-douche bag, as are most of my friends, I've spent a huge amount of time as an ambassador for guns. So far its been very rewarding, and often I get the response, "[w]ell I trust you, but what about all those crazy people." I consider even a statement such as this a small victory.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
Something that has always puzzled me is that eventually most anti-gun arguments end up being emotional ones. In other words, anti-gun people simply hate to admit that they are simply afraid of firearms.
However, I have always thought that a personal feeling (rather than the flawed logic so often employed by anti-gun people) would be far more difficult to discredit. It is easy to discredit faulty logic. However, it is very difficult to convince anyone that they do not have a right to be afraid of something.
Fortunately, most of 'em stick to flawed logic making it far easier to discredit their train of reasoning.
Something that has always puzzled me is that eventually most anti-gun arguments end up being emotional ones. In other words, anti-gun people simply hate to admit that they are simply afraid of firearms.
However, I have always thought that a personal feeling (rather than the flawed logic so often employed by anti-gun people) would be far more difficult to discredit. It is easy to discredit faulty logic. However, it is very difficult to convince anyone that they do not have a right to be afraid of something.
Fortunately, most of 'em stick to flawed logic making it far easier to discredit their train of reasoning.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
I've not had much of a chance to deal with these anti-gun children until very recently- Since taking my summer internship with The Park Service, I have had to explain(defend) my right to hunt, fish, and bear arms to people on at least a daily basis.
I'm usually dealing with folks coming in absolutely furious about Alaskans hunting everything, why hunting bears, wolves, etc is wrong, and how we shouldn't have guns. I think they expect me to provide a shoulder to cry on, somebody to sympathize with them, or some hot garbage like that. I think their shock is what enables me to gain momentum, as I provide them with statistical data (such as the black bear overpopulation induced carnage in Game Unit 16, seriously, look it up on ADFG's website), and follow it with a rapid left hook of archeological data proving that The Unangan people(them folk who inhabited the Aleutian islands for thousands of years) performed a vital stabilizing action upon the Bering sea Ecosystem that enabled the entire system to thrive (they targeted the critters that were plentiful, and switched prey rapidly in response to population levels, thereby eliminating the rise-crash phenomena prevalent in so many of our 'hands-off' national parks). I then ask them where they get their food. when they respond with "the supermarket" or some BS like that, I point out that Tyson Chicken and such horrible folk as they conduct Doctor Mengele-style experiments upon those hapless critters. As a pointer, I explain that my food comes from my local area, has lived a wild, happy, meaningful life, and that I personally ensure that my food is ethically dispatched by virtue of my rifle. I go on to explain that my license and tags cost money, money that is used to conserve the resource, ensuring that my grandchildren may responsibly live upon the bounty of the wilds as I fully intend to do for the rest of my life, and that with proper maintenance such as predator control hunts, baited bear hunts, and the like, we can ensure that the resource remains balanced and not subject to a decadonal collapse, which ensures that they, the Liberal, will also have a bunch of critters to look at in the years to come.
I have even tailored my Orientation to Vegans/vegetarians as well, pointing out that growing produce isn't a great option in a subarctic environment, and that we (myself and the herbivore in question) are in fact of like mind in our choice to ethically consume our fuel.
This all-out ten minute discussion can be best compared to preliminary bombardment- I have now not only established a point of agreement based on scientific facts, and personal ethics with the chosen Lib, but also have cracked open even ever-so-slightly their mind, allowing a more logical, reasoned approach. at which point I discuss Firearms.
I begin by pointing out exactly what and why things happen when I go to a store to purchase a firearm. I walk them through the laws already in place, the paperwork, the phone call, everything. I recently added to this part due to that scuzzball in Colorado- explain that there are laws by which friends and family can contact the police if they feel that a person is unstable, have them evaluated, helped, and barred from legally obtaining firearms, enabling the Gun Control Act to do it's job fully. Pointing out that the GCA worked, the system of Laws worked, and that it was a failure of family and friend alike to act, and that through their negligence, horror was unleashed.
These folks then ask questions like "well, he ordered thousands of rounds and had a hundred round Beta mag". I then inform them that I routinely purchase that much ammunition, explaining to them that I use at least a hundred rounds a week, and point out that I own a Beta Mag, and it's about as useful as tits on a bull because it jams so much.
After this, I usually pull the "SturmGewher" argument from Col. Cooper, explaining that there is no such thing as an "Assault Rifle".
I'm not kidding when I say that I have to use this daily, and remain amicable in the face of Hoplophobic idiocy. I will give the british tourists one thing- they usually see reason a lot faster than any of my other listeners.
Stay Strong, Remain amicable, use tact, and you will prevail. remember that most of these folk are emotionally driven, and well-constructed reason will always triumph, especially if you appeal to their Liberal heart strings.
I've not had much of a chance to deal with these anti-gun children until very recently- Since taking my summer internship with The Park Service, I have had to explain(defend) my right to hunt, fish, and bear arms to people on at least a daily basis.
I'm usually dealing with folks coming in absolutely furious about Alaskans hunting everything, why hunting bears, wolves, etc is wrong, and how we shouldn't have guns. I think they expect me to provide a shoulder to cry on, somebody to sympathize with them, or some hot garbage like that. I think their shock is what enables me to gain momentum, as I provide them with statistical data (such as the black bear overpopulation induced carnage in Game Unit 16, seriously, look it up on ADFG's website), and follow it with a rapid left hook of archeological data proving that The Unangan people(them folk who inhabited the Aleutian islands for thousands of years) performed a vital stabilizing action upon the Bering sea Ecosystem that enabled the entire system to thrive (they targeted the critters that were plentiful, and switched prey rapidly in response to population levels, thereby eliminating the rise-crash phenomena prevalent in so many of our 'hands-off' national parks). I then ask them where they get their food. when they respond with "the supermarket" or some BS like that, I point out that Tyson Chicken and such horrible folk as they conduct Doctor Mengele-style experiments upon those hapless critters. As a pointer, I explain that my food comes from my local area, has lived a wild, happy, meaningful life, and that I personally ensure that my food is ethically dispatched by virtue of my rifle. I go on to explain that my license and tags cost money, money that is used to conserve the resource, ensuring that my grandchildren may responsibly live upon the bounty of the wilds as I fully intend to do for the rest of my life, and that with proper maintenance such as predator control hunts, baited bear hunts, and the like, we can ensure that the resource remains balanced and not subject to a decadonal collapse, which ensures that they, the Liberal, will also have a bunch of critters to look at in the years to come.
I have even tailored my Orientation to Vegans/vegetarians as well, pointing out that growing produce isn't a great option in a subarctic environment, and that we (myself and the herbivore in question) are in fact of like mind in our choice to ethically consume our fuel.
This all-out ten minute discussion can be best compared to preliminary bombardment- I have now not only established a point of agreement based on scientific facts, and personal ethics with the chosen Lib, but also have cracked open even ever-so-slightly their mind, allowing a more logical, reasoned approach. at which point I discuss Firearms.
I begin by pointing out exactly what and why things happen when I go to a store to purchase a firearm. I walk them through the laws already in place, the paperwork, the phone call, everything. I recently added to this part due to that scuzzball in Colorado- explain that there are laws by which friends and family can contact the police if they feel that a person is unstable, have them evaluated, helped, and barred from legally obtaining firearms, enabling the Gun Control Act to do it's job fully. Pointing out that the GCA worked, the system of Laws worked, and that it was a failure of family and friend alike to act, and that through their negligence, horror was unleashed.
These folks then ask questions like "well, he ordered thousands of rounds and had a hundred round Beta mag". I then inform them that I routinely purchase that much ammunition, explaining to them that I use at least a hundred rounds a week, and point out that I own a Beta Mag, and it's about as useful as tits on a bull because it jams so much.
After this, I usually pull the "SturmGewher" argument from Col. Cooper, explaining that there is no such thing as an "Assault Rifle".
I'm not kidding when I say that I have to use this daily, and remain amicable in the face of Hoplophobic idiocy. I will give the british tourists one thing- they usually see reason a lot faster than any of my other listeners.
Stay Strong, Remain amicable, use tact, and you will prevail. remember that most of these folk are emotionally driven, and well-constructed reason will always triumph, especially if you appeal to their Liberal heart strings.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
I read something here I like a lot, and it's a halfway decent sound byte, too.
If and when the predators come for us, they'll have eaten <span style="font-style: italic">you</span> way before they try for me.
I read something here I like a lot, and it's a halfway decent sound byte, too.
If and when the predators come for us, they'll have eaten <span style="font-style: italic">you</span> way before they try for me.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't talk to anti gun people... period </div></div>
+1
It amazes me when I speak to friends that have a family and have NO means of protection in their home for their family. At least if they don't like guns - get a tazer, a bat, pipe and a PLAN. I tell them to at least have a plan for an intruder, robbery or whatever.
When "stuck" in a conversation with someone who just doesn't get it in regards to protection - I give them this scenario.....what would they do if they had a wife and child (or 2,3,4+ kids) and 2 intruders came into their house undetected (because they had no alarm, or unlocked windows and doors, etc...) and they held the family up for a robbery and one of the men says "I'm going to rape your wife and kill her and your kids" I ask them- what would you do??
The reply I get? - I would try to stop them. I say, "really" with what? Then i tell them they will get shot and the rest could be a reality. They sometimes get it and others say it will never happen where they live - freaking STUPID!!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't talk to anti gun people... period </div></div>
+1
It amazes me when I speak to friends that have a family and have NO means of protection in their home for their family. At least if they don't like guns - get a tazer, a bat, pipe and a PLAN. I tell them to at least have a plan for an intruder, robbery or whatever.
When "stuck" in a conversation with someone who just doesn't get it in regards to protection - I give them this scenario.....what would they do if they had a wife and child (or 2,3,4+ kids) and 2 intruders came into their house undetected (because they had no alarm, or unlocked windows and doors, etc...) and they held the family up for a robbery and one of the men says "I'm going to rape your wife and kill her and your kids" I ask them- what would you do??
The reply I get? - I would try to stop them. I say, "really" with what? Then i tell them they will get shot and the rest could be a reality. They sometimes get it and others say it will never happen where they live - freaking STUPID!!!
Re: dealing with anti gun people
Please,find an 1971 movie titled "LITTLE MURDERS"(directed by Alan Arkin,starring Elliot Gould)and invite them to enjoy together this little black comedy_ VERY EDUCATIONAL
Please,find an 1971 movie titled "LITTLE MURDERS"(directed by Alan Arkin,starring Elliot Gould)and invite them to enjoy together this little black comedy_ VERY EDUCATIONAL
Re: dealing with anti gun people
Before I smartened up, many years ago, I chaired a very liberal political party. I had to listen to MANY anti gun rants. I bit my tongue and continued to work for some positives while my core values burned inside of me even time one these unshowered, liberal commies opened their mouths. Finally I had enough of one particular local politician. Stopped doing fundraisers for him, stopped talking to him or about him. I then silently worked my tail off to help get him unelected. I FELT LIKE I HAD REALLY ACCOMPLISHED SOMETHING.........FINALLY!! I then quit the party, changed my party designation, left my elected union position and the company they represented (for a combination of reasons, but politics was at the top) and never looked back. My wife is proud of me and I really learned how the demo-tard/gun grabbers really think. You can't change them, but you can be affective at keeping them out of office.
Before I smartened up, many years ago, I chaired a very liberal political party. I had to listen to MANY anti gun rants. I bit my tongue and continued to work for some positives while my core values burned inside of me even time one these unshowered, liberal commies opened their mouths. Finally I had enough of one particular local politician. Stopped doing fundraisers for him, stopped talking to him or about him. I then silently worked my tail off to help get him unelected. I FELT LIKE I HAD REALLY ACCOMPLISHED SOMETHING.........FINALLY!! I then quit the party, changed my party designation, left my elected union position and the company they represented (for a combination of reasons, but politics was at the top) and never looked back. My wife is proud of me and I really learned how the demo-tard/gun grabbers really think. You can't change them, but you can be affective at keeping them out of office.
Re: dealing with anti gun people
Trying to talk sense to libtards is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end!
Trying to talk sense to libtards is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end!
Re: dealing with anti gun people
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sudden Impact</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Trying to talk sense to libtards is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end! </div></div>
+1 that sums it up perfect!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sudden Impact</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Trying to talk sense to libtards is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end! </div></div>
+1 that sums it up perfect!
Re: dealing with anti gun people
+100 my blood boils too quickly when it comes to uninformed people that are afraid of their own shadow.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't talk to anti gun people... period </div></div>
+100 my blood boils too quickly when it comes to uninformed people that are afraid of their own shadow.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't talk to anti gun people... period </div></div>
Re: dealing with anti gun people
TACT TACT TACT. Never cut them off, let them go for a bit then make your argument maturely and rationally.
You are always right as an American gun owner siding with the 2nd amendment. You just have to prove it.
Ask, "why should I, (in my case) a person who has been shooting for 27 years for recreation, professionally and in service to my country. Why should I, a law abiding person who has done nothing wrong, be punished for another person's crime?
Ask, what they know about guns? The response will be something like guns take lives blah blah blah.
Respond with, I have owned firearms for (again in my case) 27 years and my guns nor I have ever killed anyone. Say, I read all about preposed gun laws have you read anything about ballistics or firearms? have you been to a range? do you know what they are really all about?
Finally, whether you are liberal or not the 2nd amendment is the only constitutional right that gives the people physical power and insures the other rights of the constitution. It is the only one that makes sure our Government works for us and not the other way around. Without it, free speech is nothing but words, free press is just telling us what they want us to hear, free religion is good as long as you worship God and Jesus.
(In my case, what I say)
I spent years of my life standing the wall of our country with a gun beside me, insuring our rights and freedoms. I sat in the freezing cold with mud in my cuts getting paid less than a McDonalds fry chef to protect our country. What have you done? Except bitch about how we aren't perfect. I carry a gun every day with the understanding that I will be ridiculed by people like you, and I am always ready to put my life on the line for a total stranger in an instance just like the recent shooting. I will not run, I will stand and fight, would you?
Finally,
I say, this country was born under a different set of ideas, that work, not perfectly but they work. It is easy to criticize something when it doesn't work for you, or when tragedy happens because one person took advantage of their freedom and acted selfishly and horribly but the answer is not to strip our own freedom away to prevent this from happening again but to let our freedom inspire justice on behalf of the lives lost,let justice be harsh and public to make others aware that we will not tolerate random acts of violence and evil to run free amongst us. Men like me will fight and defend those around me as long as I have the means to do so, But if you try and take my guns from me I will consider it an act of war and act to back my oath to defend our constitution and no one will take my guns while I live and no one will take my freedom as so long as I breath.
TACT TACT TACT. Never cut them off, let them go for a bit then make your argument maturely and rationally.
You are always right as an American gun owner siding with the 2nd amendment. You just have to prove it.
Ask, "why should I, (in my case) a person who has been shooting for 27 years for recreation, professionally and in service to my country. Why should I, a law abiding person who has done nothing wrong, be punished for another person's crime?
Ask, what they know about guns? The response will be something like guns take lives blah blah blah.
Respond with, I have owned firearms for (again in my case) 27 years and my guns nor I have ever killed anyone. Say, I read all about preposed gun laws have you read anything about ballistics or firearms? have you been to a range? do you know what they are really all about?
Finally, whether you are liberal or not the 2nd amendment is the only constitutional right that gives the people physical power and insures the other rights of the constitution. It is the only one that makes sure our Government works for us and not the other way around. Without it, free speech is nothing but words, free press is just telling us what they want us to hear, free religion is good as long as you worship God and Jesus.
(In my case, what I say)
I spent years of my life standing the wall of our country with a gun beside me, insuring our rights and freedoms. I sat in the freezing cold with mud in my cuts getting paid less than a McDonalds fry chef to protect our country. What have you done? Except bitch about how we aren't perfect. I carry a gun every day with the understanding that I will be ridiculed by people like you, and I am always ready to put my life on the line for a total stranger in an instance just like the recent shooting. I will not run, I will stand and fight, would you?
Finally,
I say, this country was born under a different set of ideas, that work, not perfectly but they work. It is easy to criticize something when it doesn't work for you, or when tragedy happens because one person took advantage of their freedom and acted selfishly and horribly but the answer is not to strip our own freedom away to prevent this from happening again but to let our freedom inspire justice on behalf of the lives lost,let justice be harsh and public to make others aware that we will not tolerate random acts of violence and evil to run free amongst us. Men like me will fight and defend those around me as long as I have the means to do so, But if you try and take my guns from me I will consider it an act of war and act to back my oath to defend our constitution and no one will take my guns while I live and no one will take my freedom as so long as I breath.
Similar threads
