PDA

View Full Version : My new tactics for arguing with anti-gunners.


ZombieTactics
01-20-2010, 4:29 PM
It seems to me that sometimes as defenders of the Constitution and Bill of Rights we fail to understand the importance of rhetorical propaganda. Often, anti-gunners are better at this. Note the success of phrases like "assault weapon", "cop killer bullets" and the recent "pocket assault rifle" phrase, applied to the FN 5.7 handgun.

Recently, I've been using these kinds of tactics to good effect. Whenever I initially hear someone say something negative about lawful gun ownership, I am quick to say something like "I had no idea you don't believe in human rights" or "when did you first realize that you hated the Constitution?" It shuts up or frustrates quite a few to the point where they become incapable of further discussion. I use this tactic only in the case where I think I am dealing with someone committed to their position and irrational.

Does anyone else use this type of approach, or is it thought to be counterproductive?

kf6tac
01-20-2010, 4:34 PM
Depends on how you define counterproductive. If your goal is to change their minds, I think just about everything (short of an actual self-defense situation) is counterproductive when you're arguing with people who use phrases like "cop killer bullets" and "pocket assault rifle."

If your goal is just to shut them up, then it seems to work just fine.

383green
01-20-2010, 4:39 PM
Don't forget to mention how modern gun control laws are build upon a foundation of racism.

jdberger
01-20-2010, 4:43 PM
And without guns we take a giant step back to the Dark Ages....

Of course, to those who idolize Camelot..... :rolleyes:

nrakid88
01-20-2010, 4:44 PM
I want a bumper stick "Anti-Gunner's Are Anti-Human Rights Activists"

Or something more clever

shadow-ote
01-20-2010, 5:06 PM
Great idea! I also defend the second by saying "well, if the second should be ignored because our founding fathers didn't know about modern weapons, perhaps you guys wouldn't mind suspending the first as well, seeing as there was no internet, text, instant messaging or anything like that".

Usually shuts up the libs, or I get the "thats different" (typical) response.

Booshanky
01-20-2010, 5:12 PM
It seems to me that sometimes as defenders of the Constitution and Bill of Rights we fail to understand the importance of rhetorical propaganda. Often, anti-gunners are better at this. Note the success of phrases like "assault weapon", "cop killer bullets" and the recent "pocket assault rifle" phrase, applied to the FN 5.7 handgun.

Recently, I've been using these kinds of tactics to good effect. Whenever I initially hear someone say something negative about lawful gun ownership, I am quick to say something like "I had no idea you don't believe in human rights" or "when did you first realize that you hated the Constitution?" It shuts up or frustrates quite a few to the point where they become incapable of further discussion. I use this tactic only in the case where I think I am dealing with someone committed to their position and irrational.

Does anyone else use this type of approach, or is it thought to be counterproductive?

I doesn't really seem like you have any real intention of either educating them or having a real discussion. Mostly it seems like you're just trying to frustrate them into leavein, in which case I don't know why you don't just walk away yourself.

Kinda reminds me of before the Iraq war when those of us who said we were against it were asked why we hated America. It really doesn't serve a purpose if you're trying to have a real discussion.


Remember, the first rule of effective advocacy is to not insult people.

CitaDeL
01-20-2010, 6:09 PM
I am quick to say something like "I had no idea you don't believe in human rights" or "when did you first realize that you hated the Constitution?"

The object is not to shut them down, but to open a dialogue.

Instead of "I had no idea you don't believe in human rights" I would go with "Do you believe in self-defense?" Since most people do, they will likely say "Yes". Then you follow up with, "Well if you couldnt rely on the police for your defense, what tools do you think would be appropriate to defend against one or more attackers?"

Instead of "when did you first realize that you hated the Constitution?" I would ask, "If the ACLU defends the right of NAMBLA to publish their material for their members, how is it different than the NRA/CGF/enter gun rights org here defending their members from prosecution for keeping or carrying a firearm?" Or "Doesnt the Bill of Rights exist to protect rights, such as speech, even if the form of speech is not popular?" Again- the answer to this is "Yes"- Then I would add, "The second amendment protects the right to be armed-especially if it is not popular."

You get the idea. Lead with common ground, and follow up with a parallel. Granted, those who have made up their mind to the exclusion of everyone else's opinion will not be moved.

HondaMasterTech
01-20-2010, 6:11 PM
People who use these anti-human-rights phrases usually don't have any intention of engaging in a conversation with the goal of learning something new. That is the problem. And, that is what is so frustrating.

Vtec44
01-20-2010, 6:55 PM
I usually don't involve the Constitution because most anti's don't know or care about it, and won't even listen if I bring it up.

I just simply explain to them that self defense is a basic human right and don't group me in the same category as criminals. With a family, kids, and several properties, I have more to lose than anyone else so I'm the last person to ever use my guns to go on a shooting spree. I typically end with something like if they ever want to learn how to shoot a gun for self defense, just let me know and I will teach them the basics. That will at least leave the door open if in the future they want to learn about guns.

Gryff
01-20-2010, 7:07 PM
Instead of "when did you first realize that you hated the Constitution?" I would ask, "If the ACLU defends the right of NAMBLA to publish their material for their members, how is it different than the NRA/CGF/enter gun rights org here defending their members from prosecution for keeping or carrying a firearm?"

I'm not sure that comparing any gun-rights organization to NAMBLA is the best of ideas. Just typing that acronym makes me want to wash my hands with lye.

M. Sage
01-20-2010, 7:10 PM
Depends on how you define counterproductive. If your goal is to change their minds, I think just about everything (short of an actual self-defense situation) is counterproductive when you're arguing with people who use phrases like "cop killer bullets" and "pocket assault rifle."

If your goal is just to shut them up, then it seems to work just fine.

Sometimes you just have to pwn them publicly to give yourself a shot at the fence-sitters.

Hopi
01-20-2010, 7:10 PM
I want a bumper stick "Anti-Gunner's Are Anti-Human Rights Activists"

Or something more clever

"Stop violating my civil rights. Learn how to count to 10."

Hopi
01-20-2010, 7:15 PM
I recently had a lengthy conversation with a rabid gun-grabber....after detailing the reality of her sinking ship....she was left frustrated and emotional to say the least.

I ended the conversation respectfully after she threw up a last-ditch effort to save her ego, at which point I think she finally 'got it' and she said, "well, then I need to start a blog to rally support for a 28th amendment."

Will that be the new front?

N6ATF
01-20-2010, 8:14 PM
"Where's your permit to speak? Don't have one? Here's some duct tape."

picasso
01-20-2010, 8:33 PM
It seems to me that sometimes as defenders of the Constitution and Bill of Rights we fail to understand the importance of rhetorical propaganda. Often, anti-gunners are better at this. Note the success of phrases like "assault weapon", "cop killer bullets" and the recent "pocket assault rifle" phrase, applied to the FN 5.7 handgun.

Recently, I've been using these kinds of tactics to good effect. Whenever I initially hear someone say something negative about lawful gun ownership, I am quick to say something like "I had no idea you don't believe in human rights" or "when did you first realize that you hated the Constitution?" It shuts up or frustrates quite a few to the point where they become incapable of further discussion. I use this tactic only in the case where I think I am dealing with someone committed to their position and irrational.

Does anyone else use this type of approach, or is it thought to be counterproductive?

You're absolutely right! It's all about marketing or selling points. So phrases like the ones you mentioned has some sort of twang in it, and it sticks. Not to mention that the anti's use words like weapons, guns, assault, lethal and other "scary" words to drive their point.

What about using the phrase: My defensive tools, My steel guardian, insurance tool, Cop helper, the flash of mercy:D and other non-lethal words to drive our point?

By the way, I like your avatar. It is human-rights!

Letitrip
01-20-2010, 8:36 PM
Just tell them:

> This is not what it means
http://www.dotcult.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/1_the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg

Lone_Gunman
01-20-2010, 8:55 PM
I propose we start hitting them with bats. Just a good hard wack or two and then say "If I feel like it I can keep going, if you had a gun you could stop me."

Silencer
01-20-2010, 11:33 PM
Ask them when they became and Anti Con. When they ask, "What's an 'Anti Con?'" I say, "It means anticonstitutionalist."

Then ask them what other racisms they have. If they claim, "I'm not a racist, I just hate guns!" Tell them, "You are a racist. I bet you have no idea what a barrel shroud is or what 'semi-automatic' means." Of course, when they can't, you say, "See, you don't know what all that means. Therefor, you based your opinions on ignorance and prejudice. That's the core foundation for racism. So, what other racisms do you have?"

They'll get the point after that.

chessknt
01-21-2010, 12:34 AM
Keep in mind that evoking a constitutional argument implies that your interpretation of it is correct and beyond reproach, which is so far from the truth that it is ridiculous. The ever-shifting interpretation of the constitution (eg. hanging people is cruel and unusual now) can be successfully utilized to discredit this claim with ease. The Constitution is more like a creative essay or the Bible nowadays, its meaning changes with whoever reads it (or rather which judge(s) read(s) it).

You fall on one side of the fence over its interpretation and they fall on the other, thus is the nature of living in a free country. Utilizing close-ended rhetoric just makes you look stubborn, extreme, and uneducated.

corrupt
01-21-2010, 3:12 AM
I propose we start hitting them with bats. Just a good hard wack or two and then say "If I feel like it I can keep going, if you had a gun you could stop me."

Now that's funny.

BadIndianSwamp
01-21-2010, 6:29 AM
How about:

"192,000 women avoided being raped last year because they defended themselves with a hand gun."

or

"Virginia Tech was so tragic...too bad none of those students were ALLOWED to defend themselves."



These facts were taken from 1/9/09 H.R. 17

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:

(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: `[C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.'.

(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.

(C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.

(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:

(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals--or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.

(3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their families' defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self-defense. For example:

(A) In 1986, Don Bennett of Oak Park, Illinois, was shot at by 2 men who had just stolen $1,200 in cash and jewelry from his suburban Chicago service station. The police arrested Bennett for violating Oak Park's handgun ban. The police never caught the actual criminals.

(B) Ronald Biggs, a resident of Goldsboro, North Carolina, was arrested for shooting an intruder in 1990. Four men broke into Biggs' residence one night, ransacked the home and then assaulted him with a baseball bat. When Biggs attempted to escape through the back door, the group chased him and Biggs turned and shot one of the assailants in the stomach. Biggs was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon--a felony. His assailants were charged with misdemeanors.

(C) Don Campbell of Port Huron, Michigan, was arrested, jailed, and criminally charged after he shot a criminal assailant in 1991. The thief had broken into Campbell's store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the assailant and planned to use him to testify against Campbell for felonious use of a firearm. Only after intense community pressure did the prosecutor finally drop the charges.

(4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police officers who use firearms in the line of duty. Similarly, law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect themselves, their families, and their homes against violent felons should not be subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to victimize them.

VictorFranko
01-21-2010, 6:59 AM
How about:

"192,000 women avoided being raped last year because they defended themselves with a hand gun."

or

"Virginia Tech was so tragic...too bad none of those students were ALLOWED to defend themselves."



These facts were taken from 1/9/09 H.R. 17

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:

(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: `[C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.'.

(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.

(C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.

(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:

(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals--or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.

(3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their families' defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self-defense. For example:

(A) In 1986, Don Bennett of Oak Park, Illinois, was shot at by 2 men who had just stolen $1,200 in cash and jewelry from his suburban Chicago service station. The police arrested Bennett for violating Oak Park's handgun ban. The police never caught the actual criminals.

(B) Ronald Biggs, a resident of Goldsboro, North Carolina, was arrested for shooting an intruder in 1990. Four men broke into Biggs' residence one night, ransacked the home and then assaulted him with a baseball bat. When Biggs attempted to escape through the back door, the group chased him and Biggs turned and shot one of the assailants in the stomach. Biggs was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon--a felony. His assailants were charged with misdemeanors.

(C) Don Campbell of Port Huron, Michigan, was arrested, jailed, and criminally charged after he shot a criminal assailant in 1991. The thief had broken into Campbell's store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the assailant and planned to use him to testify against Campbell for felonious use of a firearm. Only after intense community pressure did the prosecutor finally drop the charges.

(4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police officers who use firearms in the line of duty. Similarly, law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect themselves, their families, and their homes against violent felons should not be subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to victimize them.

Do you carry a teleprompter around with you (like Obama does) so you can rattle that off when need be?

ZombieTactics
01-21-2010, 7:00 AM
Keep in mind that evoking a constitutional argument implies that your interpretation of it is correct and beyond reproach, which is so far from the truth that it is ridiculous. ...

I suggest to you that if you are incapable of reading the clear language of the Constitution, and interpreting it in light of what its writers said it meant in their own writings and correspondence with each other, that you are therefore fundamentally incapable of reason regarding the matter. I make no "implication" regarding meaning beyond what is required to read and understand language at an adult level.

I care not that so many choose to pretend that the words of the Constitution are somehow written with rubber ink on rubber paper, to be stretched beyond any rational degree regarding their meaning. That so many have had their reason clouded by such self-contradictory nonsense is discouraging, but I refuse to pretend that they are somehow sophisticated and erudite, when it's plain that they are simply intellectually corrupt ... or perhaps simply ignorant and lazy.

BiggMatt
01-21-2010, 7:10 AM
I suggest to you that if you are incapable of reading the clear language of the Constitution, and interpreting it in light of what its writers said it meant in their own writings and correspondence with each other, that you are therefore fundamentally incapable of reason regarding the matter. I make no "implication" regarding meaning beyond what is required to read and understand language at an adult level.

I care not that so many choose to pretend that the words of the Constitution are somehow written with rubber ink on rubber paper, to be stretched beyond any rational degree regarding their meaning. That so many have had their reason clouded by such self-contradictory nonsense is discouraging, but I refuse to pretend that they are somehow sophisticated and erudite, when it's plain that they are simply intellectually corrupt ... or perhaps simply ignorant and lazy.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Chessknt!

BadIndianSwamp
01-21-2010, 7:14 AM
Do you carry a teleprompter around with you (like Obama does) so you can rattle that off when need be?

hahaha:thumbsup:

chessknt
01-21-2010, 8:25 AM
I suggest to you that if you are incapable of reading the clear language of the Constitution, and interpreting it in light of what its writers said it meant in their own writings and correspondence with each other, that you are therefore fundamentally incapable of reason regarding the matter. I make no "implication" regarding meaning beyond what is required to read and understand language at an adult level.

I care not that so many choose to pretend that the words of the Constitution are somehow written with rubber ink on rubber paper, to be stretched beyond any rational degree regarding their meaning. That so many have had their reason clouded by such self-contradictory nonsense is discouraging, but I refuse to pretend that they are somehow sophisticated and erudite, when it's plain that they are simply intellectually corrupt ... or perhaps simply ignorant and lazy.

That is just the problem: show me the documents that support the 2nd amendment explicitly meaning that every citizen should own a weapon and be able to carry it around on their person at all times. Such a document does not exist and the language of the 2nd amendment is (like it or not) vague. One could easily point out that our 'militia' is now a standing military force and it is THEIR right to bear arms to protect the free state, not ours.

I am not saying I support such an interpretation, I am just acknowledging that it is valid because the Constitution is written in intentionally vague language. Claiming the moral high ground like you have some sort of insider insight on what they were thinking hundreds of years ago is misguided at best and crazy at worst.

Edit: Heres a good link of a fairly neutral site that looks at the background/history/interpretations of the Constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

ZombieTactics
01-21-2010, 9:09 AM
... I am just acknowledging that it is valid because the Constitution is written in intentionally vague language. ...
I'd appreciate it if you would consider the possibility that you have been taught, and are simply repeating, the notion that the Constitution was written in vague language, and that this was intentional. I see nothing in the nature of the document itself, the history of its authorship, or anything written or said by those who wrote it, to support such a notion. The fact that people some 200 years after-the-fact wish to engage in wholesale revisionism is quite besides the point.

A sufficient study of the document itself, it framers, their published essays, letters to each other, The Federalist Papers, etc. serve well as evidence that they wrote what they meant, and meant what they wrote, with amazing clarity and brevity, specifically striving to avoid ambiguity. This holds more true for the Bill of Rights than the previous body of the Constitution itself.

People often confuse the fact that the Constitution uses general language in some cases rather than specific language as evidence of "vague intent". I suggest that this means that those of this opinion don't really understand the use of general terminology. "Free Speech" does not specifically mention which languages are protected, for instance. Should this be taken as "vague", and therefore permissively used to outlaw French or German? I think not. Using similarly general language to imply that the government has the right to prohibit all sorts of things not specifically (enough) protected is a dangerous road.

That a crafty or devious person can twist almost any word or statement to mean almost the exact opposite of its clear, plain meaning is of no use in the discussion. Criminals of all sorts are well practiced at this game, and I refuse to play by their rules. Those who hold that this is some kind of standard of interpretation, whereby no actual meaning can be known, participate in a self-contradictory delusion. The logical conclusion is that if the words of the Constitution don't mean anything in particular, that it holds also that they structurally mean nothing at all. "Just make it up as you go along" is not process of thought, but rather of avoiding thought for whatever convenience is contrived at the moment.

chessknt
01-21-2010, 9:18 AM
Thanks for ignoring the rest of my post...
You make the assumption that I am regurgitating something I was taught. I was taught to read things critically and wrap my perspective around it from multiple angles, then deduce which one I believe is most accurate. The fact that I can see it from another perspective and acknowledge it is correct while still maintain an opposing perspective is a good thing, not some evil liberal institutionalization process. To that end, I have never taken a class on the Constitution beyond what was taught in high school government.

The link I posted is a concise (and more well-written) summary of what I was saying. There is a high degree of legitimacy to the counterpoints both in a historical and modern context, and it is important in the compromise process to acknowledge them. Refusing to see the other side/casting them as crazy or irrational is the start of a radical polarization process in both yourself and the people you argue against. It's happened to our political landscape and is destroying our country, so try to be a little more open minded or, at the very least, refrain from the ad hominem rhetoric in your OP.

SVPRApps
01-21-2010, 9:28 AM
Criminals won't take the time to go into a gun store and go through a lengthy background check just to commit a crime with the weapon. Doesn't make sense to buy a gun in a CCTV recorded store and put your fingerprints and ID and then go out to use that weapon in a crime. Gun control affects the law abiding citizens that go through that process that use their guns for sporting/recreational/defense purposes.

That's just my argument to them.

ZombieTactics
01-21-2010, 9:42 AM
... Refusing to see the other side/casting them as crazy or irrational is the start of a radical polarization process in both yourself and the people you argue against. It's happened to our political landscape and is destroying our country, so try to be a little more open minded or, at the very least, refrain from the ad hominem rhetoric in your OP.

Radical polarization process ... ? Jeez, you really drank a gallon or so of that Chomsky koolaid, huh?

I think what is "destroying our country" is precisely the sort of "Its means something/nothing/anything we want whenever we want it" approach to Constitutional interpretation you espouse.

You could argue otherwise, but why should anyone take your words to mean what youintend? Personally I interpret them as comedy, and evidence that you possess rare powers of intellect and observation, focused squarely upon satire-as-art. I could be wrong but - by your own logic - you'd have to acknowledge my perspective and admit that it's correct, or at least as correct as anyone else's interpretation, including your own. Or you might protest that certainly you know what you meant, and we could all twist that as being wry wit intended to reinforce a dry parody of your own thoughts. This is the end result of that kind of philosophy, that you must ultimately conclude that even your own words mean nothing in particular aside from however anyone might rightly or wrongly (can we even use those terms?) interpret them.

I have no trouble rejecting this as self-contradictory nonsense. It's not intended as an insult, just a rational observation. Certainly you must able to acknowledge my perspective, or else you're radically polarizing the issue and thereby destroying the country.

(Try not to get emotionally invested, as it clouds reason. I certainly don't feel insulted or upset by your assertions that my opinions are "ridiculous" or that I "look stubborn, extreme, and uneducated." It's kind of an adult conversation thing)

Bugei
01-21-2010, 9:44 AM
Assuming I don't just ignore them (figuring that when push comes to shove, the anti-2As are going to be the first into The Camps), I like to draw them out and listen carefully while they natter on and on.

Then I :
1) laugh like a bastard.
2) point at them, helpless with laughter.
3) walk away, shaking my head.

It's an act in most cases; they want to be seen as caring, sensitive people. But they would be more than willing to dance in your blood if they could get someone else to spill it for them. They would certainly be glad to send police -- armed police -- to come and take your guns and shoot you if you resist. Just ask them; most of them will admit that they would do that. They'd claim it was all your fault, of course, for resisting.

What's to argue at that point?

Silencer
01-21-2010, 10:32 AM
Keep in mind that evoking a constitutional argument implies that your interpretation of it is correct and beyond reproach, which is so far from the truth that it is ridiculous.

The second amendment spells it out, in proper English grammar, that I can own a firearm. Fact. No 'interpretation' necessary. What's so hard to understand, buddy?

PEBKAC
01-21-2010, 10:47 AM
There's a good reason to avoid the constitution but not because it is unclear in its wording...it is because it is a law which without being proven moral at some point during the argument will land you in the "morality =/= legality" trap. Ethics 101 can throw a wrench in constitutional arguments outside the courthouse to say the least. :rolleyes:

Frankly I do think we need more catchy easily repeatable phrases though. I think "Don't hate my rifle because it's black!" is a good example of what we need more of. ;)

dustoff31
01-21-2010, 11:01 AM
Assuming I don't just ignore them (figuring that when push comes to shove, the anti-2As are going to be the first into The Camps), I like to draw them out and listen carefully while they natter on and on.

Then I :
1) laugh like a bastard.
2) point at them, helpless with laughter.
3) walk away, shaking my head.

It's an act in most cases; they want to be seen as caring, sensitive people. But they would be more than willing to dance in your blood if they could get someone else to spill it for them. They would certainly be glad to send police -- armed police -- to come and take your guns and shoot you if you resist. Just ask them; most of them will admit that they would do that. They'd claim it was all your fault, of course, for resisting.

What's to argue at that point?

If one must talk to anti's at all, this is probably the best approach.

Personally, I see talking to them like talking to doorknobs. You could, but why? It is pointless.

Glock22Fan
01-21-2010, 11:29 AM
Personally, I see talking to them like talking to doorknobs. You could, but why? It is pointless.

I've been talking to my S.I.L for more than twelve years on this subject. She sees a picture of Sarah Palin and asks "Who needs a machine gun to slaughter moose?"

My M.I.L. still thinks that a .223 fires two hundred and twenty three rounds a minute, and has no idea why someone would want one.

Not saying that there aren't people who are on the fence, but I've given up with the totally committed ones.

chessknt
01-21-2010, 3:52 PM
The second amendment spells it out, in proper English grammar, that I can own a firearm. Fact. No 'interpretation' necessary. What's so hard to understand, buddy?

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.

Actually it says that a militia, being necessary to keep the States free (notice the capital letter), has the right to own firearms (and is allowed to be regulated by the States). If you looked over the link I posted, the historical context of this was that the States operated more like independent nations (hence the capital) and were extremely mistrustful of the federal government and any standing army it might have and thus wanted the ability to keep their own armed citizen forces. Since this has little contextual application to modern times, one could say that it has been grossly misinterpreted by you and everyone else on this forum since most of us are not part of any state militia.

I am not saying I support this interpretation (I own firearms as well and believe I have the right to), I am simply acknowledging that the Constitution is not as clear on this as some believe it is, which is why we have gun control issues in the first place. If you disagree with the above interpretation you need to provide something more compelling than an order to read the Constitution.

Like it said on the website, reconciling public safety (which is an issue--gunshot wounds are a huge domestic problem for us) with gun ownership rights is the best course of action. Pretending that there is no public safety problems because of guns is just as naive as pretending that all public safety problems are because of guns.

PEBKAC
01-21-2010, 4:13 PM
I was under the impression that "well regulated" was tantamount to "well equipped" back in the day...someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

Militia if I recalled, included all free men...and if I recall, they were not equipped by the state. Again, stop me if I'm wrong...

Seems to me that a more accurate reading of this should be: the populace (effectively being the militia) must be well equipped (so as to be able to adequately defend the security of a free state), hence the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (so as to allow the populace to be well equipped).

Just because there is no longer a state militia does not change the fact that the reference was to the rights of the populace.

Someone stop me if I'm off base. :)

cbn620
01-21-2010, 4:25 PM
I doesn't really seem like you have any real intention of either educating them or having a real discussion. Mostly it seems like you're just trying to frustrate them into leavein, in which case I don't know why you don't just walk away yourself.

Kinda reminds me of before the Iraq war when those of us who said we were against it were asked why we hated America. It really doesn't serve a purpose if you're trying to have a real discussion.


Remember, the first rule of effective advocacy is to not insult people.

Exactly, and I'm not resorting to the way I don't wish to be treated myself. A rhetorical point can be made sometimes to parody the other side's attempt at arguing, but in that case I am not using it to advocate my own point. I'm using in the face of an opponent who refuses to think critically and discuss actual issues.

For instance in the face of someone accusing me of being an America hater I might use a rhetorical point to show them why that is a fallacy by phrasing my own argument with their tactic. Sometimes I don't think people understand what they sound like when they say stuff like this, and it's the easiest way to break the ice and get down to the real issues. To that end I would then explain to them why it is not a logical argument to say things like that.

But I do not think Fauxing them like Glenn Beck is going to achieve anything as far as advocacy.

However I do not believe this kind of arguing is a new thing even for gun rights activists. I think this propagandist argument concept is the midwife of incessant sloganizing, bumper sticker ideology, and testosterone laden "Well you can take it from my cold dead hands then" arguing.

In short I just do not think there is any shortcut around making a thought provoking, calm, rational argument. It is a long drawn out process that will span several conversations with a person, but as someone who has changed a few minds on a number of issues I can say it works. Slowly but surely, anyway.

Pont
01-21-2010, 4:33 PM
Back to the premise of the original post...

I think the original post's strategy is worthless. Sorry. The only point you get across is "gun rights advocates are jerks."

If you're good with words, you *can* have an effect on these people, however. The trick to convincing someone who is stubbornly clinging to a wrong position is to make them think it was their idea.

You know that saying, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink"? Well it's not entirely true. Ride that bastard until he's thirsty!


Knee-jerk anti-gun sentiment is easy to comprehend. It's fear, coupled with the belief that "I don't need guns, so neither do you." To change their mind, you have to coax them out of their position, not scare them out.

My preferred strategy is to pretend to be on their side and use the conversation to encourage them to talk about the areas of their anti-gun beliefs they don't normally voice (because they are never challenged on those issues around fellow anti-gunners). Talk with them about how all the ways guns are bad. Let them talk and and talk. Chime in just enough. Then try and get them to say something like "yes, life was really better back in the good ole days before guns when a woman had no chance whatsoever to defend herself against a man who wanted to rape her." "Society was so much better off when the strongest nations were the ones who could produce the most violent thugs."

You have to guide them to the understanding that guns are easy to make and easy to smuggle. You can do this in a sympathetic voice, and they will believe it instead of retreating into their emotional safe place and labeling you the enemy. Once that sinks in, they may even come to the realization that banning guns will never work to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

chessknt
01-21-2010, 4:47 PM
I was under the impression that "well regulated" was tantamount to "well equipped" back in the day...someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

Militia if I recalled, included all free men...and if I recall, they were not equipped by the state. Again, stop me if I'm wrong...

Seems to me that a more accurate reading of this should be: the populace (effectively being the militia) must be well equipped (so as to be able to adequately defend the security of a free state), hence the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (so as to allow the populace to be well equipped).

Just because there is no longer a state militia does not change the fact that the reference was to the rights of the populace.

Someone stop me if I'm off base. :)

I guess where I lose you is how you conclude that even though there is no more need for militia, it still gives the militia (populace) the right to bear arms. If the reference was truly for the whole populace, why not just use that word instead? Militia has a definite militant connotation to it.

Otherwise very well reasoned.

dustoff31
01-21-2010, 4:54 PM
I was under the impression that "well regulated" was tantamount to "well equipped" back in the day...someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

Militia if I recalled, included all free men...and if I recall, they were not equipped by the state. Again, stop me if I'm wrong...

Seems to me that a more accurate reading of this should be: the populace (effectively being the militia) must be well equipped (so as to be able to adequately defend the security of a free state), hence the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (so as to allow the populace to be well equipped).

Just because there is no longer a state militia does not change the fact that the reference was to the rights of the populace.

Someone stop me if I'm off base. :)

You are quite correct. But most States do still have militias, at least on paper, or as a minimal cadre. States essentially "sold" their right to maintain their own military forces to the federal government with the Dick Act.

Tarn_Helm
01-21-2010, 5:32 PM
The object is not to shut them down, but to open a dialogue.

Instead of "I had no idea you don't believe in human rights" I would go with "Do you believe in self-defense?" Since most people do, they will likely say "Yes". Then you follow up with, "Well if you couldnt rely on the police for your defense, what tools do you think would be appropriate to defend against one or more attackers?"

Instead of "when did you first realize that you hated the Constitution?" I would ask, "If the ACLU defends the right of NAMBLA to publish their material for their members, how is it different than the NRA/CGF/enter gun rights org here defending their members from prosecution for keeping or carrying a firearm?" Or "Doesnt the Bill of Rights exist to protect rights, such as speech, even if the form of speech is not popular?" Again- the answer to this is "Yes"- Then I would add, "The second amendment protects the right to be armed-especially if it is not popular."

You get the idea. Lead with common ground, and follow up with a parallel. Granted, those who have made up their mind to the exclusion of everyone else's opinion will not be moved.
+1

Giving in to our own baser instincts is unfortunately easier than conducting a productive dialog that results in weakening attachments to ignorant assumptions espoused by one's interlocutor.

Ask yourself if the manner in which you demolish someone's vociferous anti-gun rhetoric has the long term effect of bringing the person over to "our side" or if it really just humiliates him or her without changing his or her mind.

If I discuss RKBA with ANTI-RKBA people, one of the first things I try to do is unhinge their attachment to their usually unresearched opinions.

I begin by asking very matter of factly: "I don't mean to sound rude, but are your views based on research which you can cite, or are they based instead on spontaneous feelings about firearms because firearms can in fact be used by bad people to efficiently kill large numbers of innocent people?"

Usually, most people will confess that their opinions are based on the latter rather than the former.

At that point, I silently conclude that I am dealing with someone who is very intellectually immature (has never really studied history or politics or philosophy or military strategy) and who quite possibly has little or no life experience with firearms, danger, crime, or self-defense.

Such a person's mind is dominated by feeling rather than fact, and in consequence of this, also dominated less by rationality than by imagination: i.e., influenced more by HOLLYWOOD and the electronic mass media.

In other words, you are talking to some who has the mind of a child in matters of firearms.

You will not make this person grow up in a minute or two with a few snide comments.

If you want to have a beneficial, long term impact on his or her thinking about firearms and the Second Amendment, you will have to go slow and dislodge the roots of his or her prejudice as deftly and diplomatically as possible and not by verbally "ripping the wings off the butterfly"--if you get my drift.

You can begin by asking the sort of question I raised above.

I would then drop the subject and return to it on a different day perhaps--after having given the seed I have planted time to break through the stony ground of prejudice in that person's mind.

During the interval, you can continue to do your homework (http://www.amazon.com/Armed-New-Perspectives-Gun-Control/dp/1573928836):
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p13/AimSmllMssSmll/ArmedNEWPERSPECTIVESONGUNCONTROLSMA.jpg

People will be more favorably impressed about your views in the long run by your strategic, well informed approach than by any bombastic display of sarcasm.

If you are going to play the role of Socrates (http://www.amazon.com/Four-Texts-Socrates-Euthyphro-Aristophanes/dp/0801485746), however, you need to study his ways--and above all, remember (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates) his fate (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/socrates.htm).
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/239/450010255_25fddf37ac.jpg

Seesm
01-21-2010, 7:19 PM
Most people who are AGAINST will just clam up after they make there point. They do not want to listen.

If we could figure a way to get them to LISTEN that is what we should strive for.

At that point if the decide guns are bad well then ..that is that. But truly guns ARE NOT bad and we try to get them to understand that...

Deadbolt
01-21-2010, 8:06 PM
Most people who are AGAINST will just clam up after they make there point. They do not want to listen.

If we could figure a way to get them to LISTEN that is what we should strive for.

At that point if the decide guns are bad well then ..that is that. But truly guns ARE NOT bad and we try to get them to understand that...



My parents ( and by virtue i was raised) are pretty staunch anti gun. But im pretty sure i can convince them to come to the BLM range clean up in my area on grounds of "environment activism"

they are very much "seeing is beleiving" and im sure once they "see" 5-10 cal gunners out there cleaning up and being the general good people we are - it will have been a huge, albeit subversive, victory

:rofl: I cant wait to swindle those old goats :D

Fjold
01-21-2010, 8:09 PM
Obama just gave us the best argument for self defense, after the Christmas Day terrorist attempt he said something to the effect of;


The system worked. the people on the plane rose up and used whatever means at hand to stop the terrorist from harming everyone.



Obama acknowledges that self defense is not only a right, it is an obligation of every member of the general public (or the common man) to protect themselves as well as the public in general.

guayuque
01-21-2010, 8:13 PM
Keep in mind that evoking a constitutional argument implies that your interpretation of it is correct and beyond reproach, which is so far from the truth that it is ridiculous. The ever-shifting interpretation of the constitution (eg. hanging people is cruel and unusual now) can be successfully utilized to discredit this claim with ease. The Constitution is more like a creative essay or the Bible nowadays, its meaning changes with whoever reads it (or rather which judge(s) read(s) it).

You fall on one side of the fence over its interpretation and they fall on the other, thus is the nature of living in a free country. Utilizing close-ended rhetoric just makes you look stubborn, extreme, and uneducated.

Quite true.

ZombieTactics
01-21-2010, 8:20 PM
Quite true.
How would you know? Afterall, it's just a matter of your opinion against others right? BTW, it's my opinion that self-contradictory statements (or agreeing with them) show a lack of logical thinking or perhaps a general inability to reason.

kperry
01-21-2010, 9:05 PM
I was under the impression that "well regulated" was tantamount to "well equipped" back in the day...someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

Militia if I recalled, included all free men...and if I recall, they were not equipped by the state. Again, stop me if I'm wrong...

Seems to me that a more accurate reading of this should be: the populace (effectively being the militia) must be well equipped (so as to be able to adequately defend the security of a free state), hence the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (so as to allow the populace to be well equipped).

Just because there is no longer a state militia does not change the fact that the reference was to the rights of the populace.

Someone stop me if I'm off base. :)
Actually, it's quite well-documented:
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/ (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html)
U.S. CODE, TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 >
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So, basically, it's every adult male citizen. (not the way I'd write it, I'd gladly fight alongside a lot of the women I know)

MichaelKent
01-22-2010, 12:18 PM
To change their mind, you have to coax them out of their position, not scare them out.

My preferred strategy is to pretend to be on their side and use the conversation to encourage them to talk about the areas of their anti-gun beliefs they don't normally voice (because they are never challenged on those issues around fellow anti-gunners). Talk with them about how all the ways guns are bad. Let them talk and and talk. Chime in just enough. Then try and get them to say something like "yes, life was really better back in the good ole days before guns when a woman had no chance whatsoever to defend herself against a man who wanted to rape her." "Society was so much better off when the strongest nations were the ones who could produce the most violent thugs."

You have to guide them to the understanding that guns are easy to make and easy to smuggle. You can do this in a sympathetic voice, and they will believe it instead of retreating into their emotional safe place and labeling you the enemy. Once that sinks in, they may even come to the realization that banning guns will never work to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

Pretty much exactly this. The most powerful persuasive tactic unfortunately isn't logic or reasoning, but rhetoric, relationship, and the enthymeme. You are most persuasive when you guide somebody along - you subtly direct them towards conclusions but they have to connect the dots on their own. If you get someone to convince himself, there is more lasting impact and less resistance from factors like cognitive dissonance. Be friendly and understanding, slip in some of the stats from BadIndianSwamp into the discussion and see what happens. There's a saying among con-men that "it's called a confidence game, not because you put faith in me but because I put faith in you."

In regards to the Original Post... sure, you can try to counter nonsense with more nonsense, but has that really been effective? You have to be really good at manipulating fear and emotion with BS (like Glenn Beck) for this sort of thing to actually work... Plus, direct confrontation and debate seldom change the minds of the advocates and really only affect the audience. So for a one on one, it's more effective to open a friendly and respectful conversation.

Though I think the best tactic is to take people shooting... Really. If my hybrid loving, greenpeace member, vegetarian brother can come to like guns after a day on the range, anybody can. :p


Great idea! I also defend the second by saying "well, if the second should be ignored because our founding fathers didn't know about modern weapons, perhaps you guys wouldn't mind suspending the first as well, seeing as there was no internet, text, instant messaging or anything like that".

Now that is an argument I haven't heard before. To expand it a little, I'd suggest pointing out that the Founding Fathers couldn't have anticipated the internet and facebook and the irreparable damage it can cause to people's social spheres, self esteem, careers, etc. They couldn't imagine that a woman could use speech to cause the death of a young girl by tormenting her on facebook, or that information leaked onto blogs can ruin a business. You could possibly argue that the internet has opened the potential to wreck the potential for life, liberty and wealth of another... yet should remain legal!

Though they may (appropriately?) claim its a false analogy since First Amendment rights have been incorporated by the US Supreme Court to the state and local level while the Second Amendment so far has not... Though in such case you could try to affirm you're debating claims of value not policy.

Thanks for ignoring the rest of my post...
You make the assumption that I am regurgitating something I was taught. I was taught to read things critically and wrap my perspective around it from multiple angles, then deduce which one I believe is most accurate. The fact that I can see it from another perspective and acknowledge it is correct while still maintain an opposing perspective is a good thing, not some evil liberal institutionalization process. To that end, I have never taken a class on the Constitution beyond what was taught in high school government.

The link I posted is a concise (and more well-written) summary of what I was saying. There is a high degree of legitimacy to the counterpoints both in a historical and modern context, and it is important in the compromise process to acknowledge them. Refusing to see the other side/casting them as crazy or irrational is the start of a radical polarization process in both yourself and the people you argue against. It's happened to our political landscape and is destroying our country, so try to be a little more open minded or, at the very least, refrain from the ad hominem rhetoric in your OP.

First, as someone who extensively studied critical thought and argumentation (even being on the university debate team), I do appreciate you taking devil's advocate and thinking critically, which is rather exceptionally rare on any internet forum. As Aristotle said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

However, I'd say the advocacy here would have a difficult time indeed demonstrating that any vague wording of the Constitution is intentional. If the legitimacy of the counterpoints hinges on intentional vagueness, then failure to demonstrate this intent would be pretty bad for the case. In contrast, I'd propose the Constitution was not written with vague intent. While it's true the changing of language and morals over time may have affected our interpretation, this alone would not negate the original intent, and the forefathers were specific on differentiating "People" from the "Militia" and specify that the right of the "People" (as opposed to the right of the "Militia") to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRuUEDfVdm4 :p

Going from a "Framer's Intent" argument, the wealth of letters and written arguments by the founding fathers indicate very clearly that the People (and not the Militia) shall have their guns. You can also refer to the wording of the Virginia legislature the second amendment is based on, as well as the original wording of the second amendment.

Silencer
01-22-2010, 7:29 PM
Actually it says that a militia, being necessary to keep the States free (notice the capital letter), has the right to own firearms (and is allowed to be regulated by the States). If you looked over the link I posted, the historical context of this was that the States operated more like independent nations (hence the capital) and were extremely mistrustful of the federal government and any standing army it might have and thus wanted the ability to keep their own armed citizen forces. Since this has little contextual application to modern times, one could say that it has been grossly misinterpreted by you and everyone else on this forum since most of us are not part of any state militia.

I am not saying I support this interpretation (I own firearms as well and believe I have the right to), I am simply acknowledging that the Constitution is not as clear on this as some believe it is, which is why we have gun control issues in the first place. If you disagree with the above interpretation you need to provide something more compelling than an order to read the Constitution.

Like it said on the website, reconciling public safety (which is an issue--gunshot wounds are a huge domestic problem for us) with gun ownership rights is the best course of action. Pretending that there is no public safety problems because of guns is just as naive as pretending that all public safety problems are because of guns.

I'm remaining nice when I say you're a victim of your own ignorance.

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.

This is what, in proper English grammar, the second amendment reads.

1. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

2. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You see, the word and needs to be placed between the word "State," and the word "the" but there isn't one. Why? In proper English grammar, you can't place two "and" words in a single sentence. Yes, it's as simple as that.

So, this is what it would look like if they didn't use proper English grammar.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Anothercoilgun
01-22-2010, 9:44 PM
"Your very questioning me is called the 1st Amendment. Now how do you think that right came to pass."

Sutcliffe
01-22-2010, 9:49 PM
That's usually good for a Linda Blair like moment. Funny how many people won't admit to their own hipocracy when confronted with it.

AndrewD
01-22-2010, 10:41 PM
Don't sweat it so much.

When they're ranting and raving, devout anti-gunners are either looking to stir up drama, or they're just preaching to their crowd. Be happy knowing that karma is a b!tch, and these same people will eventually end up in a situation where a firearm would be mighty useful.

fegves2id
02-26-2010, 9:19 AM
Has the supreme court ever ruled on an alternate interpretation of the 2nd amendment? I mean, the wording, the founders writings and the fact that this country has operated based on a PRO-GUN interpretation of the 2nd amendment for it's entire history should be pretty good indicators of what it means.

I think those who want to argue that the right does not apply to individuals would have a WAY better time just arguing that the constitution is not beyond changing. We started with how many Amendments, and ended up with how many? Just because our founders believed the people should be armed, does not mean we can't change that today. Just call the 2nd amendment stupid, and get rid of it. I would have more respect for that type of person, than one who actually ignores the evidence.