ThePatriotNurse ain’t got time for “a discussion about guns” with gun control advocates (or whatever they’re calling themselves today). “They’re like the worst girlfriend ever,” she opines. “Like she doesn’t give you anything, she only takes, takes, takes; and at the end of the day you look around and go whoa! I’m lighter in the pockets than I was before.” I reckon it’s OK to talk to gun grabbers as long as a . . .
https://youtu.be/c0bu02AN_kE< firearms freedom fence straddler or two’s listening. Alternatively, as long as you accept that you’re not going to convince them of anything and you’re doing it for sport. ‘Cause you sure ain’t gonna get laid by that “girlfriend,” metaphorically speaking. Or actually, come to think about it. So to speak.
In fact, anyone who thinks they can convince a gun control advocate that their position is untenable by using reason, logic and real world data will be stymied by what I call the “mouse under the carpet” problem.
As soon as you’ve got a bead on the mouse with your shovel, even mid-swing, the damn thing scurries to a different spot. And waits. Maybe even laughing. Knowing that you will never, ever nail it. Simply put: the mouse will not stay in one place long enough to be hurt, never mind KO’ed.
So do you bother “debating” gun control advocates? How’s that working out for you?
I debate them to expose the irrationality and ignorance of their arguments and in doing so maybe keep the less informed from being misled.
Pretty much this.
I usually start with a simple question of do we ban all guns or just what they consider “assault weapons”. That forces them into a box early because if they only want to ban “some” guns I quickly explain how much damage can be done with a pump shotgun, a bandoleer, and a little practice reloading. I also explain how much damage can be done with pistols to tease out if they think people should be able to carry in their own defense (the scene with the guy with 6 guns from Boondock Saints comes to mind).
If pistols are fine you can point out the stats that show most murders are committed with pistols and then they are forced to either disarm every law abiding CCW holder or admit that killers will move from AR15s to Glock 17s. Basically forcing the “compromise” people to admit they want to ban ALL guns which makes their position untenable to all but the most fervent socialists/statists. If they don’t want to ban ALL guns then they have basically done nothing to stop most of the violence.
I remind them that what makes a rifle so effective for a killing spree also lends its effectiveness to defending my property from violent attackers. In addition, I remind them that in just the last century our gov’t has rounded up citizens into camps and burned down compounds full of women and children not to mention the efforts of the Nazis/Soviets/North Koreans/Russians etc. so in light of all that the people truly do need a bulwark against evil men in power.
The best I usually get is people who admit the validity of these points but they still end up being squeamish “cuz guns”. But at least they have to examine their own viewpoints to see if they would really help or if it is just a feel good measure. Deep down they always realize it is the latter but hey, “we gotta do something right?”
I hit them with the undeniable facts that, although there have been three of the top ten worst mass shootings in US history occurring in the past five months, in the 58+ years that the AR-15 has been sold to the public, they have only been used in 13 mass shootings since the first one was used at the 2007 massacre in Killean, Texas. The first use of a semiautomatic rifle in a mass murder occurred in 1989 with the weapon being an AK-47.
In terms of mass shootings going back to 1982, there have been 294 of them in which an AR-15 was not used at all.
The media love to spread disinformation, such as claiming that the AR-15 came from the military’s M-16 instead of the reverse. They falsely call the AR-15, a “weapon of war,” except that in its 58+ year history, the AR-15 has never been used as a weapon of war. Meanwhile, knives have been used as “weapons of war” and every year they kill 5 times more people than all rifles combined. The left-wing hacks at Snopes claim that this fact is “unproven.” Tell the FBI that since they are the ones who maintain the uniform crime statistics databases. The data consistently show that rifles account for 1/10th of 1% of all gun deaths in the US.
The reason why the AR-15 has become the gun of choice for mass shooters is totally the fault of the media and gun grabbers who talk endlessly about it and make it attractive for copycat killers to use. Hell…if the media told the public that an Airsoft rifle was used in a mass murder, sales of those would also skyrocket and more would find their way in active shooter situations.
Not many people will be killed by them, however, but I’d bet the Democrats would make people think they did.
I wear 2A shirts on purpose to incite a conversation.
Usually its other gun owners wanting to shake my hand. But liberal gun grabbers have asked questions. When I ask them the right questions, they feel silly at the end of our talk.
It really just depends on my mood at the time.
Catch me in a pissy one and I’ll happily install for them a new anal orifice. Test new nasty, vicious, really personal insults, see what gets an appropriate reaction.
Other times, I’ll just blow them off without blowing them (intellectually) away.
Just spreading peace and love wherever I go, I will…
*snicker* 😉
“Wow. You’re quite the bigot aren’t you?” – the last time I dealt with a gun owner control advocate.
They are bigots. And what they advocate for is gun OWNER control. Take control of the rhetoric. Stop giving them an easy way out.
🤠
Hit ’em with and old favorite of mine –
“That’s *hate speech*!”
And recoil in horror, with your best ‘offended’ look.
That’s actually knocked some of them off-balance, really fucks up their attack… 😉
That’s awesome. Closest I have on that point is when I’m doing my Columbo routine with them and just asking casual interested observer questions, without actually making my own argument or taking a position.
The only true and sensible answers to my questions, of course, force them to make by their own responses the argument I could just as easily have made explicitly. When they finally realize they’re being played, they may say “Hey, are you one of those gun nuts?!” To which I act shocked and appalled and demand to know “Did you just assume my politics???” It freaks them out.
I get it from their own ludicrous “Did you just assume my gender???” trigger. Frankly, I thought that whole thing was just an Internet meme joke, until I started seeing videos of angry campus encounters where SJWs actually whipped out that little gem.
My goal is to point them out as idiots…it ain’t hard!😄
I try debate them, and always feel dumber for having attempted to do so.
I’m reading Scott Adams’ book “Win Bigly”. He points out that emotional arguments are far more persuasive than logical arguments. The problem is that laws are supposed to be rational and logical, and people want to drive them with emotion after an event like the shooting in Florida. Gun owners and gun control advocates might as well be speaking two different languages.
That was my point. Make it emotional then – and personal. They aren’t going to control the gun, they cant… But they can pass laws to try to control the gun owners. We all understand that their ideas are no more than a form of discrimination against gun owners and we need to respond with the appropriate level of personal indignation. They. Hate. You. And the tools you own.
🤠
Some of them are not completely lost. I remember myself being a lib before I got a job.
lol “before I got a job.” It’s amazing how the real world has a way of making one think more conservatively. All these snowflakes on college campuses are in for a rude awakening in the real world where no one cares about your 57 genders and the other bullshit your liberal professors spoon fed you for 4 years.
I posted a longer winded version of this answer on the ‘why don’t they get it’ thread from yesterday or the day before but, the short version is: I have talked to them, sometimes still do, but my tolerance is waning.
Why bother? Because i think the gun control debate is an example of a broader political debate about control in general. Essentially, there are those who would control other’s out of a misguided philosophy, stupidity, malice, or some combination of the above and there are those who don’t want to be controlled. I don’t want to be controlled and will, therefore, balk at any proposal to limit my self determination. (Ironically, most of those who would control me are none to happy about the prospect that I might try to control them.)
As I said, however, my tolerance is waning and more and more, when someone trys to argue with me about why they and their political allies should control me or some aspect of my life I respond with, “How?”
This question seems to put people on their back foot. If they have any logic at all, they realize that the only answer to my question “How?’ is to essentially say they can do what they want up to and including destroying me to get their way. If that is the case, I argue, I can do whatever I want up to and including destroying them to prevent it.
Thus, we are at an impasse. They wish to control others, I don’t wish to be controlled. How will you compel me to accept control, How?
If they start the conversation.
Yeah, it is worth it. I’ve debated gun control advocates, after destroying their so called “common sense” with facts and logic, till they all have finally admitted they want gun control because they don’t trust themselves if they had a gun in hand.
Of course, then it’s a whole nother debate to show that their fear of going homicidal just because “gunz”, is mostly irrational. I say mostly, because the vast majority of the small percentage of people going postal have been mostly leftists or Muslim. Progressivism/liberalism is a mental disorder.
I was a leftist also, until I stopped to think for myself. These people _want_ to live in a utopian Matrix of their own creation, except they never seem to be able to actually create and sustain it. I find it amusing they can’t figure it out.
^^^This sums it up^^^. They refuse to accept reality. As long as there have been people; there have been bad people doing bad things. Until you can change human nature it will continue. Every living thing has the right to defend it’s existence to the best of it’s ability. Accept it, live with it.
It depends. Mostly it depends on what they argue.
When they argue for, say, “controlling” the AR platform and then proceed to state a bunch of things about it which are untrue I’ll correct the record.
It’s not that I think it’s going to change the position of the speaker but I feel that we cannot allow that kind of misinformation (“It’s a machinegun!”) out unchallenged because that is exactly how those untrue statements become “facts” in the public’s mind.
Once that kind of misinformation takes hold defending the ownership/continued legal sale of something like an AR becomes damn near impossible with a lot of people because otherwise rational people have been pumped full of bullshit which is fueling their fear which is making them irrational on that particular topic.
So, I kind of ignore the grabber but counter the spiel when I encounter it.
There are two kinds of people involved in the debate over the 2A & gun control:
Those who are in favor of gun control,
& those who are actually educated on the matter.
It’s hard to debate/discuss with people who just repeat propaganda & blatant lies they’ve heard in the media. When you confront their lies & misconceptions they call you a liar or tell you they’ve done the research & you’re wrong. Even if they act like they’re considering your points I get the feeling they’re doubting the whole time & will neither realize their errors nor do the research to fact-check themselves or their opponents.
But we have to debate them. There are still fence-sitters & those willing to listen, & we need all the help we can get. If we give up trying to set the record straight then we’ve lost.
This could all become moot with the stroke of a pen. Trump could end this debate (effectively).
Eliminate school shootings, and you eliminate 99% of the anti’s emotional fuel. They aren’t going to organize a million-woman march about Chicago gang violence after all.
Banks have armed security guards. Airports have armed security guards. Hell, school football games have armed security guards. Why on EARTH don’t our most vulnerable and most precious kids have armed security guards? It’s common sense.
You stop school shootings, you stop gun control in its tracks. And Trump can be the one who finally does it.
That won’t work.
Banks have armed guards mostly as a formality, as a visual deterrent. He’s usually a semi-retired septuagenarian, or someone younger, but packing 350+ pounds. Besides, the goal of a bank robbery is money, not murder. (More people died in that Florida shooting than die in an entire year of bank robberies.) Firearms are only used in a fraction (about 15%, varies by year) of bank robberies.
The best defenses against that are the dye packs, tracking devices, cameras, bait money, man traps,, quick police response, automatic FBI involvement, most of the money being in the vault, and most of all the very low yield of only about $5K per robbery.
Your basic high school football stadium has nothing more than a chain link fence around the endzone areas. Anybody could hop that and preposition weaponry. Armed guards on game day aren’t any deterrent.
Even at schools, armor up all you want–NORAD-style–you’ll just push the site of the slaughter outside where kids congregate before school.
No, the only serious approach to shutting this down is going after the red flag waving crazies beforehand. Resourceful, remorseless would-be killers will always find a place for murder, just as they will find a means for murder.
America needs crazies control, not gun control.
I debate them on websites in order to capture the attention of people who may not pay attention to the issue. These people get anti gun messages in the news, movies and television they watch, so maybe, just maybe, they will stumble on a debate and see the other side…..
Also, by debating these numb skulls, it sharpens my arguments and helps me find more information and data as I try to improve my debate points. Look at it as punching a punching bag. Like a punching bag, an anti gunner has no sense, and punching it will not change the bag or the anti gunner…but the practice makes you better….
Another reason to debate them……you help other Pro Gun people sharpen their arguments, find more data, and learn what the anti gunners are up to….the most noticeable thing we all have to be aware of…..anti gunners now are calling for banning all semi automatics……and they are calling guns “Weapons of War,” preparing the gun control battlefield for future battles when they get the chance to come for the other types of rifle and pistol…
I get the whole “fight the good fight” and helping to spur others on motivation but I do have to admit that I’m getting to have a shorter fuse with the antis. Nowadays I just ask them to explain exactly how they are going to implement their plan to take away my guns. It forces them to either admit that they don’t know how or admit that they’d have to be willing to have the force of government kill or imprison me to do so. If/when they admit that they would send troops to my door to confiscate my guns I ask why, if they are willing to kill to take my guns, should I not be prepared to kill to keep them. Brings the debate to a rather sharp point – Would you kill me to get your way? If so, why should I give any ground to your evil philosophy?
I usually bring up Miller vs. United States (1939). In the supreme court’s opinion, a gun is only protected if it is a “weapon of war”. Of course sawed off shotguns were used in war; but apparently the justices didn’t know that.
I’ve always wondered how the SC gets the Miller decision to jive with the ’34 GCA. I want my damn Tommy Gun. (circa 1921, please)
Very good. It’s quite the shame that Miller died (murdered) before he got his Supreme day in court, and that dead men have really crap lawyers.
The case is interesting reading for those who wish to see what really happened.
I’ll talk to them long enough to figure out and state that they have no clue what they’re talking about. Usually asking them what an “assault weapon” is suffices to get there pretty quickly.
Doesn’t matter. They’re winning. Now because of communist sellouts like Cornyn, Grassley and trump veterans and people who have had hard times in their lives or even kids diagnosed with ADHD (by design) will be barred from owning guns, and you people who see “mentally ill” people (which is an overly broad term by design and will be extrapolated to include those who disagree with the left) as subhuman scum who need to be locked up forever even for those who never committed a crime.
I’ve never met a gun control advocate. I do run into people who are pro gun control because they believe what the gun control advocates say.
I have a friend who I have known for a couple of years now. He used words like “common sense” when I met him. He doesn’t anymore. He now claims to be “open minded” about the issue. I think I’ve got him to at least question his beliefs somewhere in the dark recesses of his subconscious.
Arguing with him has led me to be more informed about the gun policy argument. Every hypothetical “common sense” argument he has made that I wasn’t informed about has turned out to be counter factual, and now I know that.
Common sense is just what the average person would believe without thinking or examining an issue. Using common sense solutions to societal problems before rigorously examining them is a bad idea. Common sense solutions are only appropriate when the costs of being wrong are lower than the costs of searching for the truth of the situation. This is never the case with policy. It’s usually fine when assuming the larger container of peanut butter is cheaper per ounce than the smaller one.
You had to bring peanut butter into it didn’t you. The gun control debate is acrimonious enough without bringing up things that people are truly passionate about.
I’ll start the riot: Peanut butter and chocolate are *incompatible* flavors.
BURN THE WITCH!
Also, chunky is better than creamy.
Witches are made out of wood, or ducks, or very small rocks.
Which, common sense tells us, all float.
Especially the rocks!
GWV 1027 out!!!
Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?
There are some who call me … Tim. (True story)
*Everything* leads back to Python…
And so it is and so it shall be.
Witches are made out of wood, that’s why you can build a bridge out of them.
Very well said about ‘common sense’.
There are fence sitters. There are many who don’t know much and so are susceptible to the media. This is on both sides of the aisle. There are many who don’t care. There are many who think they can’t make change one way or another.
I talk to people when they say things that aren’t true and show them the facts. When Mothers lied about how many school shootings since January it opened a search for truth. Where I am I ask people do they care to actually prevent school shootings or are they just about no guns. I say it reminds me of things they hold dear like “women shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they are emotional.” I ask what if your belief about “weapons of war” is a lie.
Some just stay stuck. Some say oh really. The one that gets many is “there are 4 million guns in America. If they are a problem than there would be a lot of shooting going on.”
Understanding that they want to give responsibility to the State is for another time. 🙂
400 million.
Four million guns? You are roughly two orders of magnitude low.
Oops 400 million.
And that’s not counting the one’s nobody knows about.
Because I love watching commie heads explode. Just the old “the 2nd amendment is not about shooting deer or criminals, it’s about shooting commies” adage makes them go into apoplectic fits.
It’s rather difficult to have a discussion with a emotionally charged Communist,when facts not feelings are the basics for said discussion.
I debate with pro-gun and anti-gun individuals to prove that the majority of mentally ill should not have their gun rights infringed upon. Most pro- gun individuals will agree and listen to facts, while most anti-gun will agree so they don’t look prejudiced; and then continue demonizing. I also debate to show the audience of a conversation the dangerous argument anti-gun individuals are supporting. They fully believe governments are capable of overcoming human nature to build a utopian future: provided we trust them and stop standing in their way. All of human history proves them wrong. Human nature proves them wrong. Yet like Sisyphus they believe that one more try will get us to the top of hill. In the words of Tim the Enchanter, “Look at the bones!”
Ban the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
Three shall be the number, and the number shall be three…
Five is right out!
Well, Hillary has ‘long teeth’…
Ohhh, she’s vile with the great big pointy teeth!
Sisyphus believed no such thing. He was compelled to push that boulder as an eternal punishment. If he had hus druthers, he’d be back reigning as king.
You might try Charlie Brown and his belief that this time his attempt to kick the football really will be different, unlike every time ever before.
Albert Camus thought Sisyphus was happy. He argued that Sisyphus was superior to his fate during the return journey and thus found meaning amid the absurd. So, Sisyphus is either a tortured soul or a fool. I would say fool based on human irrationality against the absurd.
But you are right that I shouldn’t have said he believed he could reach the top.
Sometimes when I’m bored, there’s an audience, or both I’ll engage with an anti-gun nut. I usually just ask questions. They haven’t thought it through. As above, get them to respond with the argument I was going to make.
Eventually if they got to: “What are you, one of those pro-gun people?” I respond: “I’d like what you’re going for. I’m hoping to hear how you are going to do it, and why you think that will work.”
The other pocket response is: “Well, this is important. Doing something that feels good isn’t as important as doing something that helps.”
It”s good mental practice, too. Half the game is choosing when to accept their premise or not. Most of the time, as in politics, you don’t accept the premise of their “question.” Sometimes you do, and judo them, like “This is important, so let’s do what works. What’s that?”
Current “it” guy Jordan Peterson is quite good at this. Back in the day, Rumsfeld was genius at this. His press briefings were a delight to watch.
I am pro 2A but the problem is; rifles, handguns and shotguns are, and always have been an easy, effective way to kill a lot of people fast. I don’t think most crazies are capable of having the stomach to stab someone or bludgen them to death. I think it’s a poor defense to defend our 2A rights that a crazy will find another way.
Not too tough to chain the doors and light a fire though, or make a pressure cooker bomb, or drive a truck, or sink a ship or, oh I don’t know, commandeer a commercial jet liner and fly it into a really big building, or … or …
Trucks. You can kill lots of folks from a sitting position.
How many is “a lot of people”, in your opinion? I’m firmly in the 2A camp and the human/civil/natural/constitutional rights-based justification for keeping and bearing arms. So it’s very few and far between the exceptions that I would countenance.
You seem to be more amenable to a statistical rationale, however, as a guide to policy. So how many is a lot and where is the cutoff line, before which you would find the body count insufficient to curtail firearms further and beyond which you would find it unacceptable to continue the status quo?
Before you answer, know that the FBI’s study of 160 mass shooting events occurring from 2000 through 2013 found there were 557 injuries and 486 fatalities, or 3.5 and 3.0 per event, respectively. Is that “a lot” sufficient to rob the rights from a hundred million gun owners?
One last thing, that 486 killed includes the killers themselves. We know that that suicides are not dependant on the means available, meaning those deaths would have happened regardless. So the victim fatalities rate is actually 2.6 per event. Is 2.6 “a lot” to you? Keep in mind, restrictions leave people unarmed and vulnerable in other cases. So you could just be swapping victims, not reducing them.
I didn’t read your entire post and I’m sorry but I see where you’re coming from. Law abiding citizens wil constantly be victimized, it’s the way it is. I think guns should’ve always been a pain in the ass to get, if your law abiding you’re good to go (but at no extra cost). I’m in the processs of buying two suppressors and an MP5SD that I’m awaiting stamps on. The process to buy guns should be similar but not as crazy as what I’m currently applying for. Just saying.
When I have time I go troll left leaning sites. It’s good to show that gun-owners are the respectful, sane, and knowledgeable ones.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-house-gun-law-protest_us_5a8b0642e4b05c2bcacdfb39
If an anti honestly engages it very easy to have them box themselves in. Then you hand them the hammer and they happily nail the lid on. All very respectful like. I use questions a lot.
I went there. So much concentrated stupidity, it hurts.
Sometimes I’ll talk to gun-control nuts because I get to say things like:
“You don’t trust these people with guns?”
“One kid died holding a door so others could get away. Another was shot five times blocking a door to keep the shooter out. A coach died slowing the shooter down. Other kids hid their friends under bullet-proof cloths (they happened to have because of marksmanship practice, but …)”
“This same week (getting no press, BTW), another teenager was fired on by three masked guys who came after him. The only person hurt was one of the BGs. The difference: this kid had one of those evil assault weapons & used it.”
“How many fewer than 17 would have died at that school, if these people had more than just their courage to work with?”
“Until you can get rid of the whack-jobs, all of them, I’m for good people able to do more, including #shootback. If you can get rid of all the guns, that’s different.”
“We need to have a conversation about guns.”
“Yes, we do, because you have no idea what you are talking about.”
/blah, /blah, /blah policy!
“No, I mean just the physical facts, even how they work.”
Oh man, aint that the truth?! I’ve had more than one anti say, “what difference does it make if I know the specifics, I’m talking about protecting children, aaaagh.” I ask them if they would have a serious debate about transportation policy with someone who does not know the differences between a train, a blimp and a truck.
“….a train, a blimp and a truck.” Well played.
One could extend the example to just about anything. A doctor and various organs. A financial advisor and various securities. Or even in a non-professional setting, a bartender and various liquors.
Nobody is demanding policy wonk fluency here, just a modicum of factual familiarity. Call it conversational or even just rudimentary proficiency in the subject.
Exactly, I’ve pointed out essentially the same thing to people. They want to have a ‘conversation’ about ‘gardening’ but they can’t discriminate between a pumpkin and a carrot because they are both orange. They never even realize that though, orange, neither is an orange.
The evil people will never get rid of their guns! If all guns are banned they don’t think the drug dealer or pimp on the corner will still sell me a gun because they are illegal? Money will buy you anything your little heart desires on the black market!
I have had great effect getting people to say something to the effect of “the government must do something”. Whatever that something is, I get them on the idea that “the government” has to do it.
Depending on the vibe, sometimes I can push and get them to talk “the government” taking charge of peoples lives, restricting services to only qualified individuals, or if I’m very lucky, classifying a whole group of people (gun owners) as undesirable sub-humans worthy of eradication.
And at that point I get all indignant about their tyrannical ideas and call them a Trump supporter.
While they are winding up for the rebuttal, I go in with something like “”‘The government” is run by Trump. You give the government power to classify and punish people, you’re giving that power to Trump. You trust in Trump’s values and ideas more than you trust ME with the guns I’ve had for 40 years. Ergo, you ARE a Trump supporter, and I’ll have no business with a Trump supporter.”
They only see two positions, and they can’t figure out how to attack an (apparently) anti-Trump person without themselves taking the pro-Trump position. I expect at some point I will get to see a Scanners-style head explosion.
The head explosions certainly appear to be on the horizon. I’ve also had great fun with the “you want the government to control that, what about Trump?” approach. The truth, as I see it, is that some portion of the population wants someone else to ‘fix it’ but when they realize that they have no control over the fix, they descend into a cognitive dissonance lock up and can’t figure out what they want. Good times!
I like it when they characterize an AR-15 as a weapon of war which has no use or purpose other than to kill as many people has possible in as short a time as possible and has ni business on our streets.
Faux stunned, I’ll ask: “My Gaaawwwddd……then what on earth business does every local cop in a cruiser have carrying one of those things around on patrol??? Just who does every local police and sheriff’s department across the nation have in mind to kill so swiftly in such quantities?”
This is one of my “triggers” I’ll give you another example. We vote on weather or not to INCREASE property taxes, normally it’s for some feel good project like “schools” A$$holes that don’t even OWN property(and probably never will) get to vote on it. I “feel” that ONLY property OWNERS should be allowed to vote on these issues, but no, every jackwagon get’s to have their “vote” I think any “gun control” issues should be decided by the people of the gun, not fruitball liberals.
On the bright side gun sales/ high cap mag sales should start to go up,up,up.
I used to support gun control (although I thought guns were cool) until being swayed by facts and logic. I fancy myself an open-minded, reasonable person, and I suspect that most people do as well. The most rabid antis will never be swayed, but most people don’t know much, so they go with “common sense.” Many of those people can be turned.
I’m 100℅ anti-aircraft gun, it’s to much work concealing them.
I tell them that “if Democrats would stop shooting people, then violent crime would drop by 80% in this country”….. Then I call them rapists, robbers, drug-dealers, and murderers…. That usually shuts them up…
But then again; I spend quite a bit of time in “FB jail”; so, there’s THAT…..
I don’t bother debating anything anymore. I just send a meme about the glorious day when they get free flying lessons out the side door of a huey. Let’s be clear, she’s absolutely correct, there is no point talking to gun grabbers any longer, or really the left in general. There’s no point in trying to find common ground, there’s point in listening to their prattle. Let this sink in, there is exactly one type of person that you don’t talk to, an enemy. Once someone has been categorized as such it means that the ability to communicate with WORDS has become impossible, therefore all further communication must be undertaken with SWORDS.
Don’t kid yourself, we’re there right now, and have been for ten years. It’s just a matter of going through the motions now. A to B to C to D all the way to civil war.
Nope. I immigrated here as a child from the UK when I was 11 and am the only one who embraced the second amendment. My family thinks we should ban guns like the UK did after a tragedy without recognizing the fact that individual ownership is affirmed by the Supreme Court under the second amendment. Their friends in the UK eat it up like it’s their favourite dish.
There’s no point arguing with people who won’t change their mind. Further, there’s no point arguing with their friends in the UK whose opinions don’t matter
Every time I try to debate with these people, I fear that stupid might be contagious.
The best “weapon” against these people is the truth and factual numbers vs. emotion and hyperbole. It’s a shame they can’t accept the truth and continue on with their emotional blinders on. The old saying definitely applies here about leading a horse to water.
I don’t have enough years left in my life to debate gun control dumbasses. I point out how pro slavery their position is and then tell them they’re too stupid to hold a conversation with. As I ignore them they eventually resort to name calling, and after five minutes or so of me ignoring them, they drift off. Drifting off is what our intellectually challenged society does best.
I don’t know. Trump got elected. So maybe it’s working out somewhat. But each year, there are fewer and fewer moderates. You know, people that want to have a little bit of freedom, not too much. Just a teensy bit of freedom. Like a small taste of freedom. Not too much. The rest seem to be jumping on the left or the right, or other ideologies. Regrettably, my only ideology is freedom. When a man has the freedom to choose, then he can choose responsibility, and that is much more rewarding, than someone trying to shove their version of responsibility down your throat.
I know there are lots of people that hate me and want me to die because I advocate for firearms freedoms. So there is that.
A friend says “Nobody needs a 30 round magazine!”
I say “Is that what they told you to say?”
End of conversation.
There is very little success in arguing with a gun control advocate. In my international travels, I am always asked by foreigners about America’s horrible gun problem.
I simply say “I see not intention of bad guys ever giving up their guns in a free and open society, do you?”
When someone says we should have no guns, I tell them to put something like this on their door:
https://i.imgur.com/woiRbGl.jpg
I’d love to debate gun control with Jimmy Kimmel, Alyssa Milano, and these Florida kids. How do I do it? They have the media megaphone, and it only works in one direction. Very frustrating.
The media are pushing these kids’ opinions at us full blast, pure blatant advocacy by “newsmen.” They’ve dominated the news cycle for days. I feel sorry for the kids, but they’re kids, and kids are emotional, pig-ignorant, easily led, and strongly conform to peer pressure. Malkin has a good take on it. Kids shouldn’t make our laws.
I laugh at them, then ask them where they were when I was seventeen and learning to shoot real Assault Rifles and Flame Thrower’s LOL shuts them up Everytime. Heck I still have my first gun I got at twelve, I am mid sixties today and never shot anyone with it 😁
Comments are closed.