Defensive Carry banner

How would you respond to this?

1K views 21 replies 17 participants last post by  knite7 
#1 ·
I was reading on a regional forum, Carolina Shooters Club, about the need for education on this subject. Specifically, mention was made about how a number of gun owners / hunters have been put before a proverbial microphone and quoted as saying, "I am a hunter / sportsman, pro 2A, gun owning American and I don't need a military assault weapon and support a ban on these". The article claimed one of the things that these people need to remember is that if their brothers and sisters are successfully restricted that it won't be long before they are next as we will need to ban military style sniper rifles (i.e. hunting rifles).

In a discussion with someone who is, I believe, a step leftward of our compatriots mentioned above, the following quote was made:
For the record, I have no problem with hunting rifles; handguns are practical for hiking in dangerous wilderness. I see no rational use for automatic or assault weapons outside of the military and paramilitary/police services. Large-capacity magazines...why are they needed by civilians? Such incidents may never be entirely eliminated now that the genie is out of the bottle, but the carnage can be limited at the very least by prohibiting sales and ownership of such weapons designed specifically for mass killing.
Emphasis mine. Clearly this is how many people see these weapons. My question is, how would you even respond to them? Simply saying because it is my right to, or because I want to isn't an acceptable answer to them. To say that you don't have to justify it to them simply puts them off and they embrace the anti rhetoric. It would seem that these beings see it as intuitively obvious that if, we the average citizen gave these types of guns up, for which we have no need, that it would put a stop to the violence. To me, this is an obvious fallacy and the the answer is NO AWB, no semi-auto ban, no magazine limits, not now, and never again Is there even an acceptable (to them) answer?
 
See less See more
#3 · (Edited)
Btw, just a couple of facts. In 2010 of the 10k+ gun related murders in the US, only 380 were by rifle. There were almost 2k murders using knives and 700 or so where the person was beaten with a bat or blunt instrument. There were another 2k where the person was just beat to death. So, eliminating these rifles will do nothing. Heck, ban bats and knives.

Oh and lastly look at the statistic of mass shootings before Brady and after. Interesting numbers.
 
#4 ·
I was reading on a regional forum, Carolina Shooters Club, about the need for education on this subject. Specifically, mention was made about how a number of gun owners / hunters have been put before a proverbial microphone and quoted as saying, "I am a hunter / sportsman, pro 2A, gun owning American and I don't need a military assault weapon and support a ban on these". The article claimed one of the things that these people need to remember is that if their brothers and sisters are successfully restricted that it won't be long before they are next as we will need to ban military style sniper rifles (i.e. hunting rifles).

In a discussion with someone who is, I believe, a step leftward of our compatriots mentioned above, the following quote was made:


Emphasis mine. Clearly this is how many people see these weapons. My question is, how would you even respond to them? Simply saying because it is my right to, or because I want to isn't an acceptable answer to them. To say that you don't have to justify it to them simply puts them off and they embrace the anti rhetoric. It would seem that these beings see it as intuitively obvious that if, we the average citizen gave these types of guns up, for which we have no need, that it would put a stop to the violence. To me, this is an obvious fallacy and the the answer is NO AWB, no semi-auto ban, no magazine limits, not now, and never again Is there even an acceptable (to them) answer?
I bet that statement is going well over there. (NOT!!) :smile:

Got a thread link? I've missed this conversation and I want to make sure I can find it.
 
#6 ·
There's probably no response that they'll accept. They can't let "facts and figures" get in the way. I am firmly against an AWB...not because I have/want an AR, but because I think it's just the tip of the iceberg. Banning all guns at once would result in a tremendous uproar and perhaps even a new civil war. But if they pit gun owners against each other. Little by little they can pass new laws through because fellow gun owner feel "that doesn't affect me". Sometime down the road we'll be lucky to have bolt action rifles and pump shotguns left if things go down that path.
 
#7 ·
I'm failry stubborn. I've had this discussion with members of my wife's side of the family. Even when I present my statements w/ hard facts, these mindless mutants respond with emotion filled non-sense. I'm growing tired of having the same discussion, but my hope is that if I can make "one" of these lefty libs start to realize the error of their beliefs, than I have done something good.
 
#12 ·
I would say that "assault rifles" were designed for mass killing so the military could be more efficient in waging war. The 2nd Amendment allows for the citizenry to possess firearms for the designed purpose of fighting a tyrannical government set on turning citizens into slaves, and the military would be a primary instrument in such a scheme. In order for the citizenry to defend itself from said enslavement, they need to have firearms designed for "mass killing", just like the military has, so that a realistic fight can be made to protect freedom. Hunting rifles and .22 target pistols are not very effective against such a force of brute strength, thus assault weapons would be a vital ally in such a fight.
 
#13 ·
As a follow up, here was the response that I gave:
Dialog is also a prerequisite to any sort of meaningful progress on the issues that everyone really wants to address. One thing that is clear is that the true objective is to reduce the carnage and devastation caused by these types of incidents. The problem, at least as I see it currently, is that some see the mechanism to reducing criminal and lunatic activity is to put restrictions on people other than the criminals and lunatics in the hope that this will some how have a trickle down effect. I think that this belief is enhanced by the failure to understand any legitimate purpose behind these types of weapons. I also don't think that to those who don't believe civilians should have them that there is any argument or reason that they will find acceptable. Similarly, those of us who do believe that civilians should be able to posses these types of weapons don't understand the rational behind banning them, nor do we believe that it would make any progress towards the desired goal of reducing the violence and we also believe that the historical data backs this position. The same can be said about magazine limits, etc. To those who don't agree with a ban, these tactics are not viable solutions to a problem we agree exists, but an assault on our rights. Both sides are equally entrenched, neither side will give ground, and the argument can not be rationally won. I also doubt whether or not either side has the political capital to do more than create a stalemate over a bunch of scorched earth.

To me, it appears that as a nation as a whole, and as a society, we have a choice. Do we want to fight over "the usual suspects" (awb, magazine capacity, etc) or do we want to work together to come up with meaningful solutions? Which is it more important to (the proverbial, collective) you: to punish the (proverbial, collective) me for something that (the proverbial, collective) I didn't do or get to the real end goal of reducing the bloodshed in a manner we both can live with?

Personally, I think that if the threats of bans were taken off the table, or were at least set aside, we could get a lot farther. In fact, I think focus being bans is making things worse.
 
#16 ·
Criminals, Bad Guys, Evil People don't follow laws. They don't follow the existing laws and they won't follow new laws that prohibit law abiding citizens from owning guns. These Evil People are the problem. Weapons don't kill people. Evil People kill people. That is the truth. When you accept the truth we can then start to discuss ways to prevent evil people from doing evil things.
 
#17 ·
Criminals, Bad Guys, Evil People don't follow laws. They don't follow the existing laws and they won't follow new laws that prohibit law abiding citizens from owning guns.
What is strange is that while they may acknowledge this, they still cling to the idea that that putting restrictions on the law abiding will somehow reduce the availability to and activity of the criminals. How this would happen is never mentioned. It is just simply stated repeatedly, over and over again.

The thought just hit me: wasn't this exactly what happened with the Fast and Furious Scandal? Legal guns getting into the hands of criminals. The parallels are unnerving.
 
#18 ·
The left has spent decades trying to make people believe that the 2A is about hunting. And following the same pattern as what happened in England. Slowly chipping away at the edges and have people say, "oh, i don't have a need for that type of weapon so I don't care", until everything is made illegal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigStick
#20 ·
When I have these discussions, I try to take people back to the days when the Constitution was written. We had just fought a war to throw off an oppressive government and history has shown that we were right to do so. So, let's look at that for a moment: who are "We?" We the People, the CIVILIANS of the colonies who had to fight off a professional army (or armies if you count mercenaries). They abused and took advantage of us until the seeds of revolution were sown; then they tried to disarm us. We said "enough is enough." So what weapons did we use to throw off this tyranny? Certainly not the 'safest' weapons we could find. No, we used "Assault Muskets!" Had the colonists possessed AR's would they have used them? Or would they have said, "No, these are too dangerous. It would be better to be subjugated than stoop to using these horrible things?" Heck yes they would have used them.

So, part of the argument stems from the Second Amendment, but the other part I use stems from Government shutdowns: can the Anti's really promise us that a shutdown or collapse will never happen? Can they promise that I'm just being paranoid and that I'll never have to defend my family against rioters, looters (including rapists) or scumbags in general? What about all the instances where lawlessness has broken out and claimed lives? Katrina, LA riots, and the like? Can they predict the future? Don't let them BS you on this, press them, "Can you predict the future?" No normal person wants to have to kill people, but I'm determined that my family isn't going to meet their maker until He decides it's time, not some nutjob. Sometimes in order to do this job, you need an AR or something like it.

Now, this is not my whole argument, just a few of the points I make: it's at this point I either have them on my side, even if just a little bit, or they say silly stuff like, "Well, if they really want to kill you that bad, you just have to let them," or "I guess that if it comes to that, you just have to accept that it's your time to go." At that point it's easy for me to leave them feeling like they've totally lost the debate by saying something like, "Well, if that's your choice I can respect it, but I love my family too much to let anything like that happen."

If all else fails, just take them to Old North Church, sit them down and let them think awhile. :)
 
#21 ·
I like the history lesson approach. It seems the vast majority of citizens don't understand their own history. It's an indispensable necessity to any meaningful dialog about the constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights.

It seems to me a major weak point in the Antis' argument is that they are always willing for military and police to have these arms. So, what is the difference between myself and the police? Aside from their mandate, it is training. Personally, I am not inclined to negotiate away my rights, but if we must have a compromise to throw on the table, it should be possible to agree that with training one would be deemed safe enough to keep and bear these particular arms. Many of us already have the training which would qualify and it could be an incentive for someone to offer low-cost training.
 
#22 ·
The best response I have heard to the question "who needs an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine?" came from Bill O'Reiley. He said if someone breaks into my house with a pistol and I have a pistol, there would be a fight. I DON'T want a fight, I want to kill him where he stands as quickly as possible. (or words to that effect)
The other response I heard from someone was that he was one of those untrained incompetent civilians we hear some much about and therefore he would need all 30 rounds in the hopes that one or two might actually hit their target.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top