Defensive Carry banner
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
840 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,033 Posts
Why don't we just stick with the meaning of the 2A. I can not understand why we try to convince anti's by using analogies and example that have nothing to do with the Second A. I understand the philosophy of doing what you want but it only changes the subject to something else.

The issue is the 2A. It should not be compared to any other issue that is not 2A related. All of these arguments have been used before and they fall on deaf ears.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,747 Posts
The difference being that a driver's license is a privilege granted by the state, whereas the right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right framed by the Constitution.

Most anti-gunners are liberals. Just tell them that you've killed thousands fewer people with a gun, than they have with abortions. That always gets 'em riled up, and I'm even pro-choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NONAME762

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,296 Posts
Excellent article, Dave. You did a fantastic job. Keep up the good work and thanks for contributing to the defense of our 2nd Amendment rights. You are a true American.

Your article reminded me of something my mother said many years ago:

"There's nothing more uncommon than common sense."

That is so true amongst the liberal anti-gunners. They have absolutely NO common sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,733 Posts
The difference being that a driver's license is a privilege granted by the state, whereas the right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right framed by the Constitution.

Most anti-gunners are liberals. Just tell them that you've killed thousands fewer people with a gun, than they have with abortions. That always gets 'em riled up, and I'm even pro-choice.
Agree, this as it should be, but we don't follow it do we? If we legally carry we all have to grovel at the feet of the local sheriff or magistrate for the privilege of carring a weapon.
Somehow we have lost sight that carrying weapons is a right. It has improved be we aren't there yet.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,029 Posts
Maybe it's just me,but,i've never said anything to a gun grabber,and they turn around and say,you know what,i agree with you.Every gun grabber,i've read about,or talked to,is a gun grabber.I don't waste my time,anymore,with antis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Why don't we just stick with the meaning of the 2A. I can not understand why we try to convince anti's by using analogies and example that have nothing to do with the Second A. I understand the philosophy of doing what you want but it only changes the subject to something else.

The issue is the 2A. It should not be compared to any other issue that is not 2A related. All of these arguments have been used before and they fall on deaf ears.
Disagree. The issue is the 2A, yes. But the method is putting it in terms that even an anti-gunner can understand, one that hits home in an area where they aren't so blinded by irrelevancies and biases.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,033 Posts
Disagree. The issue is the 2A, yes. But the method is putting in terms that even an anti-gunner can understand, one that hits home in an area where they aren't so blinded by irrelevancies and biases.
But we do that all the time.....and they come back with:

Cars are different. They are not meant to kill.
People do not buy cars to go murder a bunch of people at a time
Alchohol used in moderation does not hurt anyone
Of course folks that drink and drive should be punished

I am not justifying or agreeing with any of the above......

I know many anti's and just for fun,,,,,because I know it won;t change thier minds, I ask them how they would like it if they brought back prohibition. They ignore it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,762 Posts
Why don't we just stick with the meaning of the 2A. I can not understand why we try to convince anti's by using analogies and example that have nothing to do with the Second A. I understand the philosophy of doing what you want but it only changes the subject to something else.

The issue is the 2A. It should not be compared to any other issue that is not 2A related. All of these arguments have been used before and they fall on deaf ears.

Because the 2nd amendment is just that, an amendment! I was not in the original constitution and it does not have to in the future constitution! Anything that helps someone see things the way we do it helpful to our cause!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Warrior1256

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,033 Posts
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Has it been working?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
Because the 2nd amendment is just that, an amendment! I was not in the original constitution and it does not have to in the future constitution! Anything that helps someone see things the way we do it helpful to our cause!!!!
Never considered it from this point of view before, but you're right. Thanks for calling my attention to this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,762 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,692 Posts
Without going back to my notes and research, I believe the reason it wasn't in the original is because most of them felt it wasn't necessary to spell it out; everyone understood and agreed on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sarge65

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,033 Posts
slightly better your prohibition argument....
What prohibition arguement? This one, the one where I made it a point I was not being serious and was doing it just for fun?
I know many anti's and just for fun,,,,,because I know it won;t change thier minds, I ask them how they would like it if they brought back prohibition. They ignore it.
You mean that one?

I have had better luck talking to anti's by sticking to the subject of the 2A. Not crime, not comparing it to other things such as driving, but sticking to the 2A only. If they start comparing and stating crime stats I just interrupt them and ask where is crime addressed in the 2A. Stick to the topic.

I ask them" tell me what guns should be banned and why"

When they bring up assualt weapons I tell them what the difference is between a military M4/M16, an Ar-15, and a semi auto hunting rifle. I explain to them the cosmetic features.

When they say that these guns were not invented back then I reply that in fact, if you go by the wording and intent of the Constitution, the diaries and writings of the FOunding Fathers, assualt weapons would be the last ones to be banned since that is the common arm of the infantry.

When they try to talk about 5 year olds killing 2 year olds with b-day presents i ask them what does that have to do with the 2A? I do not bring up how many kids die every year in pools because mommys is not paying attention while she gets a tan.

Then i will finally ask them if they want a change to the COnstitution or not.

That is the only issue. And I actually do get farther in arguments and discusiions that way because you get rid of all of the biased stats and visceral analogies. But her is why it does not work....most folks do not approach it that way. We try to use our stats vs their stats. This terrible crime (Newtown) vs whan a CC'er actaully uses his weapon. It is all fluff.

But we are all in the same fight. So you fight your way, and I will fight my way. I just prefer to use an arguement that actually addrresses what the issue is instead of clouding it with something that has noting to do with the 2A.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,762 Posts
Without going back to my notes and research, I believe the reason it wasn't in the original is because most of them felt it wasn't necessary to spell it out; everyone understood and agreed on it.
I do not know the details about why it wasn't originally included and will take your word for it but result is the same. The constitution is an evolving document and I think it's useful for us to remember that when blowing our 2nd A horns. I believe (me, myself and I) if 2 or 300 people are killed in the next couple years from mass shootings we will see how evolving it really is.... JUST MY OPINION!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Warrior1256

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,762 Posts
What prohibition arguement? This one, the one where I made it a point I was not being serious and was doing it just for fun?

You mean that one?

I have had better luck talking to anti's by sticking to the subject of the 2A. Not crime, not comparing it to other things such as driving, but sticking to the 2A only. If they start comparing and stating crime stats I just interrupt them and ask where is crime addressed in the 2A. Stick to the topic.

I ask them" tell me what guns should be banned and why"

When they bring up assualt weapons I tell them what the difference is between a military M4/M16, an Ar-15, and a semi auto hunting rifle. I explain to them the cosmetic features.

When they say that these guns were not invented back then I reply that in fact, if you go by the wording and intent of the Constitution, the diaries and writings of the FOunding Fathers, assualt weapons would be the last ones to be banned since that is the common arm of the infantry.

When they try to talk about 5 year olds killing 2 year olds with b-day presents i ask them what does that have to do with the 2A? I do not bring up how many kids die every year in pools because mommys is not paying attention while she gets a tan.

Then i will finally ask them if they want a change to the COnstitution or not.

That is the only issue. And I actually do get farther in arguments and discusiions that way because you get rid of all of the biased stats and visceral analogies. But her is why it does not work....most folks do not approach it that way. We try to use our stats vs their stats. This terrible crime (Newtown) vs whan a CC'er actaully uses his weapon. It is all fluff.

But we are all in the same fight. So you fight your way, and I will fight my way. I just prefer to use an arguement that actually addrresses what the issue is instead of clouding it with something that has noting to do with the 2A.
I'm sorry but that is way too many words for me to read and watch TV at the same time... but Ok.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,692 Posts
I do not know the details about why it wasn't originally included and will take your word for it but result is the same. The constitution is an evolving document and I think it's useful for us to remember that when blowing our 2nd A horns. I believe (me, myself and I) if 2 or 300 people are killed in the next couple years from mass shootings we will see how evolving it really is.... JUST MY OPINION!
I don't necessarily disagree with you. The Constitution was meant to be changeable, but with caution and wisdom. The fight is for the hearts and minds of those in the middle who are confused, ignorant, or uncaring. We surely do not want to alienate them but to educate and convince them of the wisdom and necessity of the 2nd A as a final bulwark against tyranny. One of the problems I see is that many (if not most) people seem to believe that We The People are powerless against the government and that implementing the final solution is folly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SCXDm9

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,885 Posts
i think using something like drunk driving would be a good way to make some anti look at something in a new perspective. sure it may not be the best comparison, but it isnt a bad one. i like it.

But we do that all the time.....and they come back with:

Cars are different. They are not meant to kill.
People do not buy cars to go murder a bunch of people at a time
Alchohol used in moderation does not hurt anyone
Of course folks that drink and drive should be punished

I am not justifying or agreeing with any of the above......

I know many anti's and just for fun,,,,,because I know it won;t change thier minds, I ask them how they would like it if they brought back prohibition. They ignore it.
just remind them that most gun owner dont buy guns to murder people too :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,567 Posts
Drunk drivers get busted by the law also, even when they don't hurt anyone. I don't use that as a comparison.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
20,219 Posts
Let's look at it another way, a way that considers behaviors.

In 2010, there were 31,000 gun-related deaths in the US.
19,400 were suicides.
11,100 were homicides (of which 665 were "legal" homicides).
606 gun deaths were accidental.

In 2010, there were just under 33,000 vehicular deaths in the US.
There's no way to tell for sure how many were suicides, and let's not call alcohol-related vehicular deaths "criminal" at the moment. So that means 33,000 American died unintentional deaths in motor vehicles that year.

The 19,400 firearm suicides were all intentional. Worldwide suicide statistics demonstrate that people who decide to take their own lives usually succeed, no matter what means are available.

Firearms homicides of the legal or illegal kind all involve the deliberate pull of a trigger.

So 250 million motor vehicles in the US killed 33,000 people in 2010, nearly all unintentionally.

The same year, about 200 million guns (give or take 50 million) killed 606 people unintentionally.

So it is either suicidal intent or criminal intent - both deliberate, human behaviors - which was responsible for 98% of the firearms deaths in 2010.

Since the suicides will find other means to achieve their goal, that leaves the criminals as responsible for the "preventable" gun deaths. Thus if reducing gun deaths is truly the goal, why aren't we going after criminals with fury instead of firearms?
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top