Trying to use an analogy on my liberal friends - Page 2

Trying to use an analogy on my liberal friends

This is a discussion on Trying to use an analogy on my liberal friends within the Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; You are walking down the street and the guy in the first picture sticks a gun in your face and is about to kill you. ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 43
Like Tree41Likes

Thread: Trying to use an analogy on my liberal friends

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array ExactlyMyPoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2,968
    You are walking down the street and the guy in the first picture sticks a gun in your face and is about to kill you.

    Man-suit-gun.jpg

    The second guy shows up and saves your life.

    Undercover cop.jpg

    One is a killer, the other is an undercover cop. One is evil, one is not. What is the difference?
    Spirit51 likes this.
    Preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse or Rapture....whichever comes first.


  2. #17
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaplain Scott View Post
    I know that the OPs goal is to convince. My point is that due to the primary motivation of the "antis" being emotional, that logical discussions are not much use. If we look at your straw-man argument, well, OK, as a logical next-step of your "argument", then we ought to also ban all semi-automatic weapons (pistols included) that are magazine-fed, because they can either accept hi-capacity magazines OR be reloaded so quickly, that they can still be used to inflict so great a harm on so many people...... We should also pass laws that limit people to six-shot revolvers, and then also ban the old speed-loaders--this would keep everybody safe right?? Because we expect others to respond to us in reasonable and peaceful ways!!?? While I appreciate your engaging in the discussion, the argument you used is still, (as I see it) at base, an emotionally based argument.
    You're not engaging my point. A CCW at least has the likelihood of being used for the defense of the sheep. A CCW is likely to be carried, and a trained person might use it to intervene when there's a wacko with a gun threatening other innocent people. Once we acknowledge that a CCW is "a good thing to have", then talking about augmenting its utility is a useful conversation: you can make a case for anything from legal suppressors to high-capacity magazines. The OP is about the sheepdog protecting the sheep; but, unlike the CCW, I just don't see how the AW has any benefit to the sheep. Legal AWs wouldn't have been of benefit during the latest atrocity, though a strong case can been made that CCWs would have. We bemoan that the teachers didn't have pistols - we didn't expect them to have AR-15s. This is why I suggest finding and including news articles where private assault-style weapons were used by a proactive person to defend other innocent people, because then the 'liberal' can then imagine the net benefit of the assault-style weapon.

    You're using a slippery slope argument, and honestly, it's a good argument. It's just not engaging my criticism of the OP, it's discussing something else.
    Our current plan for Universal Iron Lung coverage, just sayin'.
    Wisest. Retirement. Plan. Ever.
    Good thing the March of Dimes worked. How, why?

    Alternately, for those with a tool shed, ideas, or creative loved ones to tell..


  3. #18
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,733
    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckQue View Post
    You're not engaging my point. A CCW at least has the likelihood of being used for the defense of the sheep. A CCW is likely to be carried, and a trained person might use it to intervene when there's a wacko with a gun threatening other innocent people. Once we acknowledge that a CCW is "a good thing to have", then talking about augmenting its utility is a useful conversation: you can make a case for anything from legal suppressors to high-capacity magazines. The OP is about the sheepdog protecting the sheep; but, unlike the CCW, I just don't see how the AW has any benefit to the sheep. Legal AWs wouldn't have been of benefit during the latest atrocity, though a strong case can been made that CCWs would have. We bemoan that the teachers didn't have pistols - we didn't expect them to have AR-15s. This is why I suggest finding and including news articles where private assault-style weapons were used by a proactive person to defend other innocent people, because then the 'liberal' can then imagine the net benefit of the assault-style weapon.

    You're using a slippery slope argument, and honestly, it's a good argument. It's just not engaging my criticism of the OP, it's discussing something else.
    The slope isn't slippery at all. The 10-round mag capacity which will undoubtedly be a part of any so-called assault weapons ban will make my edc weapons as equipped, illegal.
    "If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
    William T. Sherman

  4. #19
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,141
    Well, yeah, I agree there's the risk. And the argument to defend the capacity of the edc is a separate argument. The sheepdog argument works much more strongly on that front.
    Our current plan for Universal Iron Lung coverage, just sayin'.
    Wisest. Retirement. Plan. Ever.
    Good thing the March of Dimes worked. How, why?

    Alternately, for those with a tool shed, ideas, or creative loved ones to tell..


  5. #20
    VIP Member Array Spirit51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    2,248
    Quote Originally Posted by lordofwyr View Post
    (Posted this today on my Face Book page in an attempt to reach my lib friends that fear the dreaded "Assault Weapons" and say no one needs them in our modern society. Don't know if it will reach them through their fog of fear and hate of what to them looks scary, but who knows? All we can do is attempt to educate and ease their fear of things versus evil intent.)

    "Look closely. What do you see? A wolf? A predator? A mindless killing machine?



    Look again. This is a Belgian Sheepdog. It looks like a wolf on first glance, doesn't it? Same teeth. Same fur. But this Sheepdog is trained and lives to protect the defenseless sheep when the shepherd is not around. It stays with the flock. It knows its herd. It is not a wolf, but some ignorant people might just look at it and scream, 'I AM AFRAID OF THAT WOLF!!! WOLVES KILL!!! GET RID OF THAT WOLF!!! IT HAS NO PLACE IN OUR PEACEFUL SOCIETY!!!'

    But the shepherd knows better and needs/wants that Sheepdog for his and the flocks' protection against the predators of equal size. It does not take a dozen Sheepdogs to protect a flock. Usually one good one suffices to send wolves looking for easier prey. One chihuahua sized Sheepdog would not be a deterrent or stand a chance against Wolf sized predators.

    Welcome to how I feel when you scream that my semi-auto AR-15 rifle is bad because it "LOOKS" bad and somewhere, sometime, a predator might get one and use it to kill."
    Attachment 65619
    Excellent. I have passed it on thru Facebook. Maybe it will open a few closed minds. It is worth the try.
    A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
    Susan B. Anthony
    A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
    Robert Heinlein

  6. #21
    Member Array Bikemobile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    69
    Im a cop, a state cop. My agency has asked its officers to make a presence at local schools in my small town recently as a reactionary statement after the CT shooting. On friday morning, i parked in my marked car on the edge of the area where parents drop their kids in the morning for school. Make a presence, be in the area to discourage criminal activity. Some parents smiled and waved, some frowned and looked away. Having a cop at the elementary school has become a necessary evil. They dont want to accept the reality that something bad could happen in their sleepy little town.

    Same with AR15's, many people dont want to live in a place where they are needed to crush evil. I dont want to have to lock my cars and my doors, or train my dog to bark at strange noises outside. But we have to, its the world we live in.
    Chaplain Scott likes this.
    PROTECT THE FLOCK, CONFRONT THE WOLF.....

  7. #22
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,733
    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckQue View Post
    Well, yeah, I agree there's the risk. And the argument to defend the capacity of the edc is a separate argument. The sheepdog argument works much more strongly on that front.
    Every lecture I have heard, from Obama all the way down to the local editorial page has made no such separation. The sheepdog dodge is bogus from giddyup, since it assumes people can't tell the difference between a wolf and a BSD. The individual pictured on the right is a wolf, and the one on the left has a concealed Glock on each hip. Dakota and Mike.JPG
    atctimmy likes this.
    "If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
    William T. Sherman

  8. #23
    Distinguished Member Array Nmuskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Upper Michigan
    Posts
    1,566
    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckQue View Post
    You're not engaging my point. A CCW at least has the likelihood of being used for the defense of the sheep. A CCW is likely to be carried, and a trained person might use it to intervene when there's a wacko with a gun threatening other innocent people. Once we acknowledge that a CCW is "a good thing to have", then talking about augmenting its utility is a useful conversation: you can make a case for anything from legal suppressors to high-capacity magazines. The OP is about the sheepdog protecting the sheep; but, unlike the CCW, I just don't see how the AW has any benefit to the sheep. Legal AWs wouldn't have been of benefit during the latest atrocity, though a strong case can been made that CCWs would have. We bemoan that the teachers didn't have pistols - we didn't expect them to have AR-15s. This is why I suggest finding and including news articles where private assault-style weapons were used by a proactive person to defend other innocent people, because then the 'liberal' can then imagine the net benefit of the assault-style weapon.

    You're using a slippery slope argument, and honestly, it's a good argument. It's just not engaging my criticism of the OP, it's discussing something else.
    If I may interject, your point assumes the "wolf" is an armed citizen with evil intent toward another citizen (typical violent crime).
    What if the citizen owned AR or other military style rifle is protecting the "sheep" from oppressive government (the BIG wolf)? Is this not a major intent of the 2nd amendment?

  9. #24
    Senior Member Array sensei2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    washington state
    Posts
    1,080
    a powerful statement in favor of having a gun came from member MamaMaria, in the thread "Your best 'One Line Defense'".

    part of what she said:

    "have you ever heard of an unarmed victim of a violent crime who was glad they did NOT have a gun to protect themselves?"


    i recommend you look at her entire post, which is #20 in that thread.

  10. #25
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Nmuskier View Post
    If I may interject, your point assumes the "wolf" is an armed citizen with evil intent toward another citizen (typical violent crime).
    What if the citizen owned AR or other military style rifle is protecting the "sheep" from oppressive government (the BIG wolf)? Is this not a major intent of the 2nd amendment?
    Might be my culture, but I don't think the AR has any influence on the existence of an oppressive government, especially in the North Americas or in Northern Europe. The gun's presence or lack thereof means nearly nothing. Now, like I said, it might be culture, where owning an AR might have some type of intimidation effect on big-for-their-britches politicians and their professional federal army, but I don't think so. Honestly, I think it's a cultural myth. You & I have fairly benign governments, all told. I don't think that any arming of the populace will shift our freedoms. Where I'm from, the person who decides to use a longarm to push for additional rights, especially proactively, ends up looking like a nut. We're not going to go to war with the army over a 5% shift in tax policy or the legality of gay marriage and marijuana, which is the level at which the 'oppressiveness debate' is currently taking place.

    Now, I'll agree that the ability to own an AR-style weapon is a decent proxy for the freedoms we currently enjoy, and that our net freedoms are higher if we've that ability. But, I don't think that civilian weapons are any real defense against government oppression.
    edit: oh yeah, I completely agree that defense vs. gov't is the intent of the 2A. That's why I think that the 2A thematically includes IED supplies, grenade, rockets, etc.
    Our current plan for Universal Iron Lung coverage, just sayin'.
    Wisest. Retirement. Plan. Ever.
    Good thing the March of Dimes worked. How, why?

    Alternately, for those with a tool shed, ideas, or creative loved ones to tell..


  11. #26
    Distinguished Member Array Chaplain Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,712
    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckQue View Post
    You're not engaging my point. A CCW at least has the likelihood of being used for the defense of the sheep. A CCW is likely to be carried, and a trained person might use it to intervene when there's a wacko with a gun threatening other innocent people. Once we acknowledge that a CCW is "a good thing to have", then talking about augmenting its utility is a useful conversation: you can make a case for anything from legal suppressors to high-capacity magazines. The OP is about the sheepdog protecting the sheep; but, unlike the CCW, I just don't see how the AW has any benefit to the sheep. Legal AWs wouldn't have been of benefit during the latest atrocity, though a strong case can been made that CCWs would have. We bemoan that the teachers didn't have pistols - we didn't expect them to have AR-15s. This is why I suggest finding and including news articles where private assault-style weapons were used by a proactive person to defend other innocent people, because then the 'liberal' can then imagine the net benefit of the assault-style weapon.

    You're using a slippery slope argument, and honestly, it's a good argument. It's just not engaging my criticism of the OP, it's discussing something else.
    15 Year Old Houston Boy Uses AR-15 To Shoot Home Invasion Suspect - YouTube

    My fault for not being more clear--I'm not talking about using an AR under my sport coat, but protecting my home and loved ones.........
    atctimmy likes this.
    Scott, US Army 1974-2004

    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
    - Ronald Reagan

  12. #27
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,078
    I have a childhood friend who is beyond reach. I've been having a conversation with him, and he told me, as a teacher, he has a duty to protect children..."within reason". Huh?

    Then he went onto tell me it's "God's will"...and to make the point finer, he believes that armed defense of students by teachers is "retaliation"...and guns don't belong in schools.

    Sadly, during the discussion, he believes it would be better to be mayrtred than to defend children with a firearm. Yeah...he went there. I told him he has no business being responsible for other people's children.
    Last edited by SIGguy229; December 23rd, 2012 at 10:50 PM.
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know

  13. #28
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749
    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckQue View Post
    Might be my culture, but I don't think the AR has any influence on the existence of an oppressive government,
    If the AR has no influence on the existence of an oppressive government, then why are they so insistent to remove them from the population?

    especially in the North Americas or in Northern Europe. The gun's presence or lack thereof means nearly nothing. Now, like I said, it might be culture, where owning an AR might have some type of intimidation effect on big-for-their-britches politicians and their professional federal army, but I don't think so. Honestly, I think it's a cultural myth. You & I have fairly benign governments, all told. I don't think that any arming of the populace will shift our freedoms. Where I'm from, the person who decides to use a longarm to push for additional rights, especially proactively, ends up looking like a nut. We're not going to go to war with the army over a 5% shift in tax policy or the legality of gay marriage and marijuana, which is the level at which the 'oppressiveness debate' is currently taking place.
    We're not going to war either over such wedge issues as you mention. We did not resolve to revolutionary war until King George made an effort to disarm us.

    The oppression that we are fighting against has nothing to do with the issues before stated; rather it has everything to do with all of our eroding rights. We are resisting measures by our benevolent leaders to strip us of our rights of free speech, free religion, freedom to keep & bear arms, freedom of privacy, the right to due process, etc & etc.


    Now, I'll agree that the ability to own an AR-style weapon is a decent proxy for the freedoms we currently enjoy, and that our net freedoms are higher if we've that ability. But, I don't think that civilian weapons are any real defense against government oppression.
    edit: oh yeah, I completely agree that defense vs. gov't is the intent of the 2A. That's why I think that the 2A thematically includes IED supplies, grenade, rockets, etc.
    Wholeheartedly agree on this last point.
    atctimmy likes this.
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  14. #29
    Member Array steffen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by Nmuskier View Post
    If I may interject, your point assumes the "wolf" is an armed citizen with evil intent toward another citizen (typical violent crime).
    What if the citizen owned AR or other military style rifle is protecting the "sheep" from oppressive government (the BIG wolf)? Is this not a major intent of the 2nd amendment?
    The major problem with your idea is that liberals trust the government...
    The problem with gun control is that drugs are already illegal.

  15. #30
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,643
    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckQue View Post
    If I lean back and think about it, I think that AWs are more likely to be used to hurt innocent people than to hurt a badguy. It's just not the place of a civilian AW, in modern society, to be used to prevent innocent people (especially strangers) from being killed. ..
    I just don't buy that the AW-style weapons have any benefit regarding the evil that stalks amongst us. Well, okay, a minor benefit, sure; but I think that minor benefit is outweighed by the harms. ...
    But the vast majority of AR's and their use is for punching holes in paper. The times they are used to hurt innocent people are extremely rare and not a justifiable basis for eliminating them from access by law abiding citizens. There are much bigger fish to fry out there if anyone wants to really make a difference in the lives of children.
    atctimmy likes this.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

analogies for ar rifles

,

analogies for liberals

,

analogy describe tuned in turbo

,

analogy for trying to argue with a liberal

,

analogy of liberal spending

,

bad liberal analogy

,

law enforcement analogies

,

law enforcement analogy of sheepdog

,

sheepdog analogy

,

walking stick analogy

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors