Every time I explain why the AWB was ineffective to the point where the anti-gun person finally gets it, I feel like I have made things worse.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have yet to hear the response "Well then we need to ban the weapons rather than the features the original awb did"

I have yet to hear the response "Well then we need to ban the weapons rather than the features the original awb did"

 

the follow up statement being would you like to ban planes and fertilizer as well?

Well certain amounts do have to be reported now

Well certain amounts do have to be reported now

 

LOL

 

reported =/= banned

 

I would NEVER offer this up.. because I know that everyone would have a heart attack.. but if I am being totally honest.. I really could care less if the government knows I have guns.."reporting" the guns I have is honestly not even a concern to me..

 

LOL

 

reported =/= banned

 

I would NEVER offer this up.. because I know that everyone would have a heart attack.. but if I am being totally honest.. I really could care less if the government knows I have guns.."reporting" the guns I have is honestly not even a concern to me..

 

I meant after Oklahoma city the govt started requiring fertilizer amounts purchased to be recorded

I have yet to hear the response "Well then we need to ban the weapons rather than the features the original awb did"

 

Well I just had a conversation where I explained the AWB and the response was that we need to ban all semi autos. Then it was ban them all.

 

This person is not even a liberal.

Gun rights advocates generally do a bad job of explaining the assault weapons ban issue from our perspective. The simplest way to approach it is to start with the Constitution. Does the Second Amendment draw any line as to what type of "arms" are protected and what type can be banned? As much as some 2A activists like to argue that the 2A gives us the right to own anything and everything the military has, that is not so. Heller explained that line can be and in fact is drawn: Arms in common use for lawful purposes, in particular self-defense, are protected by the 2A. True military weapons -- howitzers, grenade launchers, machine guns and nuclear weapons can all be banned so the typical reductio ad absurdum arguments of gun contol activists ("so why not just let everyone own nuclear weapons") is nonsense. Semi-automatic firearms, modern firearms owned in the tens of millions by law abiding Americans and used for self-defense and all sorts of sporting purposes, clearly fall within the test articulated in Heller and are protected by the Second Amendment. Period.

 

That is probably why savy gun control activists avoid coming out and saying they want to ban all semi-autmoatic firearms, which they clearly do want to do, and instead seek to ban the made up, artificial category of "assault weapons" with the hope of squeezing as many semi-automatic firearms in this category as possible. Using all sorts of sensationalist and inaccurate terms -- "powerful firearms", "rapid fire", "no one needs them" etc., etc. -- they portray this one artificial subset of semi-automatic firearms, defined by meaningless features (flash hiders, collapsible stocks, etc) and magazine capacity as more dangerous and lethal than any other firearm. So, in reality, "assault weapons" is a meaningless term that is used by gun controllers and the media to refer to one particular subset of semi-automatic firearms that are no more and no less lethal than any other firearm and in fact have lawful uses and can't be banned under the Second Amendment. The proposed ban a) makes no sense and b) is unconstitutional.

 

I like to ask -- let's say, God forbid, that next week a maniac walks into a mall with a pump shotgun, lever action rifles, and two .357 revolvers with speed loaders, and kills 20 people without a single semi-auto. Will there then be a cry to ban these guns as well? Should we ban speed loaders that enable rapid loading of revolvers? Should civilians only be able to own single shot firearms, or perhaps muskets? Some may say "yes that is exactly what we want" and the only answer to that is fine I get it, you want to repeal the Second Amendment. Then let's make that the topic of our "discussion on gun control" not the bs assault weapons ban. Let politicians propose a constitutional amendment deleting the 2A. Let's see how the country feels about that.

I meant after Oklahoma city the govt started requiring fertilizer amounts purchased to be recorded

 

Never once had my fertilizer purchases recorded.

I had the same problem .

I have a friend his wife is anti gun , What ever i said about guns I was wrong !

 

So we talked about guns, and I went to the gun room and pulled out a WASR10 and she said "OOO NO you cant own that "

So I went back and pulled out a Norinco Hunter (Look it up if you dont know)

And she said "THats fine its a hunting rifle "

So I told her to get her facts, before you argue with me, there the same gun just dressed down.

 

We never had any words about guns again

They have no clue on what they are talking about, so you will never be right.

 

I also ended an argument with someone last week about what happened, and I said when you can tell me the gun was mentally ill , I will here you out

What i mean is, I feel like I just explained where they could "improve" it.

 

They don't agree it was ridiculous, they see how it could have been more effective.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem is emotion vs logic. It is 100X harder to undo the emotional argument put forth by the antis with a logical argument. They appeal to the emotional reaction. Trying to get logic through to someone that is now emotional entangled....pretty tall order.

Simply put if they are Anti to begin with there is probably very little you could do to win them over. They will never see the constitutional side nor will they admit the act was caused by some evil bastard that was en route to the Psych ward. Our view is rational Law Abiding citizens don’t conduct themselves in that manner. The only surprise thus far is the Left has not made the Psycho shooter a victim yet. the easy play for the Anti's is to make 2A folks the whipping boy. Meanwhile somebody made a huge mistake but leaving this kid on the street....

 

Edit: typo

Who needs a car that can drive faster than the speed limit. Ban them, speed kills.

 

Who needs alcohol. It really adds nothing to society. It should be banned as well.

 

Who needs a boat for pleasure? Pleasure is not a necessity and should also be banned in all forms.

 

(see where I'm going?)

the follow up statement being would you like to ban planes and fertilizer as well?

 

Yes because 20 year olds with Aspergers make great hijackers

 

It's nowhere near a comparison, massive international terrorism vs. stealing mommy's guns

 

 

Yes because 20 year olds with Aspergers make great hijackers

 

It's nowhere near a comparison, massive international terrorism vs. stealing mommy's guns

 

McVeigh wasn't a massive international terrorist.

 

Never once had my fertilizer purchases recorded.

 

Bulk purchases

The problem is emotion vs logic. It is 100X harder to undo the emotional argument put forth by the antis with a logical argument. They appeal to the emotional reaction. Trying to get logic through to someone that is now emotional entangled....pretty tall order.

 

And that's why we have such a tough fight ahead of us!

you have to use emotion to get a response from them. turn their emotions into youre weapon. start by getting that emotional response and slowly reason with them until they say what you want them to say. i think everyone should listen to the new GFH radio episode that came out today. it put a lot into perspective and gives several ways to deal with those stubborn emotional antis.

Who needs a car that can drive faster than the speed limit. Ban them, speed kills.

 

Who needs alcohol. It really adds nothing to society. It should be banned as well.

 

Who needs a boat for pleasure? Pleasure is not a necessity and should also be banned in all forms.

 

(see where I'm going?)

 

I am in a strange and maybe a little enviable position. I am from New York, work there in media, know people in news and eat lunch with documentarians. I have told many a story as a video editor and have made big ideas palitable and smaller by taking the main points and emphasizing them.

 

That said, I don't think the "who needs cars that go over the speed limit" has legs. Your point makes absolutle sense and I get it, but it doesn't get in. That's because those same people would agree with it.

 

So for me, I walk amongst these people and they know I have been to the war, I am not a nut and when I talk about assault rifles I have have carried one, as well as a belt fed, in a combat zone and they know this. They know it because I was with them when I got the mobilization order.

Other people's mileage may vary, but this has had some great effect: I say this-

 

"You know me. I own a gun or two. I have trained with and carried an assault rifle. I know what it is capable of in my hands. I got more training with it than with a handgun. I know that in defense of my own home there would be no better choice than a replica AR-15 m-4 variant in my hands because I know it was designed to do what I would need it to do in defense of my home, my family and my country. When I hear you say why do I NEED one I say why would I use anything but? Do not let those that take that weapon on the offense stop you from thinkng that it has no other use."

 

Inevitably they will say "well yea, you were in the Army and you are the exception".

 

I always respond, "there are millions more that are better than me".

 

i think everyone should listen to the new GFH radio episode that came out today. it put a lot into perspective and gives several ways to deal with those stubborn emotional antis.

 

I will do that. Thanks for letting us know.

Bulk purchases

 

Which is useless in all but the first occurrence unless subsequent perpetrators are really dumb. Someone could easily hit a few different places, buy a few different brands, pay cash and gather enough to do a lot of damage. The typical criminal may be dumb but these mass killers are anything but typical.

 

Which is useless in all but the first occurrence unless subsequent perpetrators are really dumb. Someone could easily hit a few different places, buy a few different brands, pay cash and gather enough to do a lot of damage. The typical criminal may be dumb but these mass killers are anything but typical.

 

True. It just takes a little longer now.