How to shut down the "reasonable restrictions" arguments

[bunkerguy]

Need a few quick ones that will shut down in a liberal, as well as a few for a few longer winded debates to try and win over a few "on the fencers".

PS is there a area on the site where we can refine our answers roo the liberal`s mindless attack on the freedom the insures all others?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Thunder71]

Quickest is ignoring them. You won't change their mind.

Tapatalk - Helping people post from bathrooms since 2009.

[bunkerguy]

Quickest is ignoring them. You won't change their mind.

Tapatalk - Helping people post from bathrooms since 2009.

you are right you can't change them, but you can kill their argument, and expose them as the half-wits they are.

[Edward7]

Don't fight liberals, we always win......But on guns we're wrong so Id say compare the argument for legalizing drugs (The drug doesn't commit crimes the drug user commits them so punishing people who do drugs but don't commit other crimes makes no sense.) to keeping guns.

[Mike1956]

I don't try to shut them down, but do explain my unwillingness to join them in the self-imposed, voluntary victim-hood their agenda espouses.

[oakchas]

You can do that... But you won't win hearts and minds... That should (IMO) be the goal.

There are quick "put downs" but using them only reinforces their "feelings" about us "gun nuts."

They think we're all knuckle-draggin'-booger-pickin'-neanderthals, who can't have a reasonable discussion.

We may know that our arguments are reasonable, and that theirs are emotional... But they believe the opposite is true.

...

The best way to deal with them, is to make them "think" on their own "turf", with their emotions.

"I can sure see why it seems to make sense to limit magazines to 10 rounds, but what do you think would be a reasonable limit on the means you could use to protect your daughter from a serial rapist?

Should you say, just be forced to wait the 8 minute average response time it takes police to respond to a 911 call? Or should you be able to stop him immediately?

You see, I don't think there are any restrictions that are "reasonable" when it comes to my protecting my family from evil.

I don't know about you, but I would give my life, rather than see one hair on my daughters head harmed by some rapist or murderer."

[Ryan8088]

Until they find a way to make a police officer weigh 13 oz, I will carry my (insert firearm name here: Glock, Walther, SW, HK, Colt, Sig,.....etc)

[Crowman]

A collection of quotations on the right to keep and bear arms
About The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotat...&v=8z6C8k4YFCs

Bottom line: The 2nd amendment says it all.........

"A well regulated militia being necessary to
the security of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[RightsEroding]

to try and win over a few "on the fencers".

First; liberals are rarely "on the fence." Liberals believe all fences need to be taken down so your fellow man can also enjoy (share the wealth) what you have worked for.

Those who are actually on the fence with this issue, can be won over, but it takes time and logic. Another reason liberals can't be swayed as "logic" is not in their vocabulary nor do they practice it.

[nedrgr21]

Don't fight liberals, we always win......But on guns we're wrong so Id say compare the argument for legalizing drugs (The drug doesn't commit crimes the drug user commits them so punishing people who do drugs but don't commit other crimes makes no sense.) to keeping guns.

Good thought on turning the tables. However, the liberals I've come across don't win, people just walk away from their yelling of irrational drivel.

[noway2]

Some of you really need to hold up a mirror and take a really long look into it!
Do you think that your name calling, labeling, and attempts to belittle others helps the pro gun rights cause in any way? It doesn't and quite frankly, I've seen a lot of behavior and talk from pompous Conservatives that is downright disgusting. Do us all a favor and keep your liberal bashing to yourself.

[NMB]

I personally like to list off all of the current laws, requirements for ownership, talk about the restrictions on full auto and supressed weapons, etc.

Start off by saying "here is what I think the laws should be" go through that list, and then look around at all the morons nodding in agreement. They dont actually know about any firearms laws, most will be shocked when you follow up by saying "im glad you all agree, since those are the current laws".

Works every time.

[Smitty901]

You get the 5th justice to change the meaning of the 2nd and all arguments are over.
You do as some on one political side do when you use words like reasonable and fair or right you get in their face as say over and over . Reasonable you tell me what is reasonable, fair, right tell me who are you to make that call. Followed by rolling your eyes back and and statements like there it is the word reasonable.
You can not ague it with them they will not hear reason they are not interested.
Every gun forum has plants in it they are there to go along but every once in a while bring up the we can all agree no, one needs------. They are often the first to point out something done with a weapon that is plain wrong.Then they back off they are the seed planters they appear to be mostly pro 2nd but they are there to undermined to weaken. They are trained at it. I know I use to sit at the meetings.

[steffen]

There is no "one-liner" to shut down somebody who is either on the fence or completely against using a firearm for self-defense. I started a thread about the article below a few weeks ago. Basically, there are two main reasons someone opposes using firearms in self-defense. They either have an irrational fear of guns, or they are against using any type of force in any situation.

Raging Against Self Defense

[ccw9mm]

The problem is, the "reasonable" argument starts with the bias that any disagreement is unreasonable. So, you're already behind the curve on any such discussion.

IMO, the way through is via simple, undeniable, can't-ignore logic that appeals to the person in question. That person's got to see how the given restriction either (a) fails to protect anyone and (b) fails to actually achieve the goals it seeks. Tough criteria, when "all" that's being suggested is training, or time delays, or limits on round counts, or limits on number of purchases in a time frame, or whatever. Reality is, it's not the violent felons who are making such documentable/restrictable purchases, going through such introductory training, applying for CHL's. In the end, it's basically the upstanding citizen who pays for these things, infringed upon the right to own and carry arms, while the felons continue to acquire their weaponry via other means.