I know better than you

[nums]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-reaction-to-brexit-is-the-reason-brexit-happened-20160627?page=3

The "I know better than you but don't need to convince you" attitude seems everywhere. Fundamentally, it demonstrates a lack of respect for those that disagree, both in their values and in their reasoning. We see it used by the American left, big govt Republicans, the anti-gunners and some globalists.

We (most gun people) keep using logic and reason to discuss things with the other side. Then, they virtually assassinate us with ad hominem emotional attacks and social/economic ostracization. BTW, their method usually works.

So, what are the best tactics and strategies to counter this?
1) reason with them and discuss facts?
2) counter-attack with emotional laden labels and slogans?
3) collectively socially (and economically) punish individuals that disagree? (LGBT tactic, e.g., Mozilla foundation CEO ... btw, being LGBT doesn't bother me at all)
4) others?

#1 doesn't seem to be working, but it is the moral high ground. I'll always support this path.
#2 Trump does this. BTW, we have no idea who he really is. Everything shown now is anti-Trump caricature or PR fakery by Trump. I support just like I would a "random guy from the phone book" over Hillary
#3 We rarely do this. However, check out this vid with Piers Morgan v Ben Shapiro. Brilliant! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=BHIQtxLCgrM)
4) Would love discussion and suggestions.

Looking forward to your comments.

[aklon]

For what it's worth, I note that the anti-rights people have no problem shooting their yap about NRA and its' people in front of their pals and the press - but put them in front of an actual, live NRA member who doesn't buy their nonsense and they have nothing to say.

We're up against a bunch of cowardly bastards who are amazed that we've let them get away with it for so long.

[hikingwithguns]

Who needs the constitution anyway?

Here is a nice example from a Facebook user: "Let me ask you this - you think that it's reasonable to ask the Sandy Hook victims (kids) to defend themselves with guns? You know the bible references against false idol worship, in your case being the NRA. Maybe if you pull your head out of your right-winged ******* you would see that guns aren't going to solve any problems, defense or no. It's like I'm talking to a wall. Basically HWG, go **** your self and your kind back to hell where you belong. Your days are numbered."

This is why I'm voting for Trump. He basically uses their own ad hominem attacks against them, and it drive them nuts. And if he decides to round them up and send them to the camps, well that's just tough crap now isn't it. I won't lift a finger.

[nums]

Here is a nice example from a Facebook user: "Let me ask you this - you think that it's reasonable to ask the Sandy Hook victims (kids) to defend themselves with guns? You know the bible references against false idol worship, in your case being the NRA. Maybe if you pull your head out of your right-winged ******* you would see that guns aren't going to solve any problems, defense or no. It's like I'm talking to a wall. Basically HWG, go **** your self and your kind back to hell where you belong. Your days are numbered."

This is why I'm voting for Trump. He basically uses their own ad hominem attacks against them, and it drive them nuts. And if he decides to round them up and send them to the camps, well that's just tough crap now isn't it. I won't lift a finger.

My standard ad hominem response (lifted somewhat from Shapiro) to that is "why are you a racist? 30 white kids die and you want to change civil liberties. 500+/year black people die in Chicago ... and you don't comment" Of course, that conveniently leads into Chicago's gun laws and their ineffectiveness.

[mshill]

My standard ad hominem response (lifted somewhat from Shapiro) to that is "why are you a racist? 30 white kids die and you want to change civil liberties. 500+/year black people die in Chicago ... and you don't comment" Of course, that conveniently leads into Chicago's gun laws and their ineffectiveness.

Nice. Ill have to remember this.

[Cowboy T]

To the point of emotional arguments, that's why the story of my Dad's self-defense throughout his life is so effective in these situations.

Case #1: At a major university in Virginia, the VCDL had a rally in support of campus carry (don't deny your students and faculty a Constitutional right). Several students came up to me, a mixture of so-called "races". They peppered me with questions. I answered them all. Then I told 'em, my turn, and asked them for their thoughts about my Dad's survival at the hands of those knife-wielders.

Dead-silence. With just one question. (5-second wait) I ask, "...anyone...?" (five more seconds of dead-silence) I ask, "*nobody* here can answer that question?" A few more seconds, and finally one girl admits, "OK, no, your Dad wouldn't have survived, but......" and her voice just kinda trailed off. Must've been that she realized that there is no "but" to being dead.

Case #2: Katie Couric's little "Under The Gun" interview with us of the VCDL. From the moment I shared that story, she did everything she could to avoid me and change the subject when I would challenge her. She did *not* want to address me after that. Of course, as most of us now know, she has proved herself, along with her "director" buddy-pal, to be an accomplished liar.

Case #3: Three years ago, I was talking with some Progressive-oriented journalist fellow working for what I would call a "crunchy granola" sort of publication. This was the same guy who had written, in very biased anti-language, about his having attended an AK-47 Build Party. He was looking for "non-typical", i. e. not Conservative/Republican, gun owner views for an article he was to write for this publication. So, he got an earful in phone interviews from several of us pro-2A Liberals, including me. I mentioned that I knew about his AK Build Party article; he sheepishly acknowledged that he had written it. So, I told him the story of my Dad and asked him if *he* thought Dad would've survived that attack without his gun. To this guy's credit, he did admit, "no, no way he would've!" And he continued to hear about how the 2A really means, in the end, the last defense of liberty.

Later on, we learned that he had abandoned the project.

Generally, when I get people front 'n' center and they hear Dad's story, they're not quite sure what to do. Even Katie knew better than to overtly diss my Dad's story immediately, at least in front of all those people.

Things have seemed to be different when I've been right in front of people, especially if they're *not* accomplished, practiced liars.

[wireless]

Here is a nice example from a Facebook user: "Let me ask you this - you think that it's reasonable to ask the Sandy Hook victims (kids) to defend themselves with guns? You know the bible references against false idol worship, in your case being the NRA. Maybe if you pull your head out of your right-winged ******* you would see that guns aren't going to solve any problems, defense or no. It's like I'm talking to a wall. Basically HWG, go **** your self and your kind back to hell where you belong. Your days are numbered."

This is why I'm voting for Trump. He basically uses their own ad hominem attacks against them, and it drive them nuts. And if he decides to round them up and send them to the camps, well that's just tough crap now isn't it. I won't lift a finger.

Can he find me where the NRA endorsed this idea or anyone for that matter?