Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: conversation with a anti gunner, please read and spread

  1. #1
    New Member  
    Join Date
    10-15-10
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    5

    conversation with a anti gunner, please read and spread

    This is a conversation I had today with a rabid anti gunner. I'm posting this in the hopes that other people will see and spread the word to those on the fence about gun rights in hopes of getting them active and against these people who will say and do anything to force us into their utopia. Sorry about the length


    Him: Why bother sending American kids to fight terrorists overseas if right-wing extremists are just going arm the terrorists here? It's a slap in the face to every patriotic American family that sent their son or daughter to fight for our country. In the radical right-wing world-view it's sensible to require someone to show an ID to cash a check but it's too much to ask they show an ID to buy a hand gun. Progressives believe in the right to bear arms but we believe that right doesn't extend to terrorists, felons, mentally ill teenagers and it doesn't extend to weapons with no other purpose than to take human lives. The NRA/Republican position of'"everyone has the right to buy whatever gun they want, all the time, no questions asked" doesn't protect the liberty of law abiding citizens, it defends the right of terrorists, felons and mentally ill kids to commit massacres.

    Me: Having been one of those sons, playing that particular card is a slap in my face. If you want to argue facts, thats fine I enjoy debate. Trying to score points by emotionally using the military means you can kiss my ass. Instead of regurtgitating mindless talking points and making sweeping generalizations (that whole NRA/Republican position fallacy), do some research. If you did you would know that it is already illegal for those felons, terrorists, and mentally ill kids to be in possession of guns as is murder. So what, do you want another law to make it extra super duper illegal? I have not seen where anyone in this discussion mentioned getting rid of the background checks, but since you brought it up. You said that they are I should have to show an id to buy a gun (and I have, everytime), shouldn't that same rule apply to other rights? If it is not a burden to those who practice their 2nd amendment rights, how can it be a burden to those who are using their voting rights?

    Him: No, I've no interest in debating facts -- if facts were what decided gun policy outcomes then the US would have the same, sane gun regulations that every other industrialized country in the world has. I could sit here and explain the fallacy of composition and plaster the discussion with charts and graphs (see above) showing how wrong you are -- but it wouldn't matter. The gun debate is emotional and it's about personal identity and values. For too long radical extremists like yourselves have co-opted and framed the debate in language that casts you all as patriots and defenders of the constitution etc. -- which is a lie. You are the radicals, you are the ones whose policies allow for the Sandy Hooks and the Columbines and the Virginia Techs. We win sensible reforms (that is, we get the swing votes) when you're recast as the extremist, un-patriotic bullies and defenders of felons, terrorists and criminally insane that you are. That is my only desire and if that offends you, good -- I welcome your offense -- you're the 30% of the electorate that cannot be moved and you're the antagonist in this story.

    Me: I never cast myself as a patriot, but I have served and still provide service to those in harm's way. You know, the ones you tried to use in your first post for the emotional hook.
    Labeling and marginilizing people with different views sure does make it easy to cast yourself as the hero while discrediting your opposition. The person wishing to force his views on others is suddenly the "valiant crusader for rightousness" while the guy who wishes to debate is the unpatriotic bully. All the while no facts are used just personal attacks and asperations. Well done, if a bit foam flaked.
    You still have yet to answer if all rights will be subjected to your rules, or just the ones you feel us little people should not be afforded.

    Him: You don't serve those in harms way by opposing sensible gun reform, that's how you put them in harms way. And no, not all rights -- only the rights that extremists with paranoid world-views use as a smokescreen to arm and defend murders, terrorists and the criminally insane.

    Me: What are sensible gun reforms? At least you are honest in your view that rights are only for those who agree with you, and all others are how did you put it "extremists with paranoid world views".

    Him: Sensible gun laws: see every other developed nation on the planet. We need to be as serious about combating gun violence as we are about combating terrorism. 30,000 gun deaths in America each year, that's 10x the death toll of 9/11 - Each. Year. None of this has anything to do with law-abiding gun owners. Every law-abiding American has the right to own a gun to hunt or protect their families - the constitution is crystal clear on this. But you don't need a semi-automatic assault rifle to hunt deer and if you do, you shouldn't be allowed near a gun. Sensible reform means closing the gun show loophole that allows criminals and terrorists and people who are mentally unstable to get their hands on weapons without a background check. It means enforcing the laws on the books, making background checks faster and more accurate. It means making sure we can track down a gun's serial number from cartridges left at a crime scene. It means cracking down on unscrupulous gun dealers. It means stricter laws on who can purchase the kinds of guns that account for most school massacres and gun violence in our cities. It means taxing guns and ammo at a higher rate to defray the medical costs associated with gun violence. There's no contradiction between protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens to hunt and protect their families and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.

    Me: Surprisingly we agree on some items, that is what debate is about instead of throwing firebombs. I agree that the laws on the books need to be enforced, along with making background checks more accurate and faster. I am all for cracking down on gun dealers who violate the law. I am also sure that you would agree with me that any police officer, federal employee, or politician that uses their position to sell illegal guns should face penalties harsher than the run of the mill criminal.

    Where I personally disagree is the gun show loophole mainly because it is impossible to enforce, how do you stop a private citizen from selling to another private citizen (all licensed dealers at a gun show are legally required to do the standard ATF background check, those that do not fall under the unscrupulous gun dealers that should be cracked down on).
    I also disagree on the serial number on the cartridges for the same reason, it is unenforceable and could cause more harm than help at a crime scene. So far the proposed methods of micro stamping wear out quickly and are on a commonly replaced part of a firearm, the firing pin. Any criminal that can get a nail file could rub the stamping off easily, or replace the firing pin. Worse they could go to any firing range, pick up a handful of spent casings from shooters around them and drop them at a crime scene. I am a law abiding citizen and thought of this, so how many ways could someone out to break the law come up with.
    Taxing guns and ammo at a higher rate, only serves as a poll tax. Keeping the poor and minorities from owning firearms much like it did for voting. Also how do you justify a punitive tax on someone who has committed no wrong simply because someone else did. "An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy."-John Marshall
    The assault weapon is another area that we disagree. Assault rifles are small to medium caliber rifles with select fire capabilities, and are already highly regulated. "Assault weapons" is a term that is too fluid and often focuses on cosmetic features of a weapon rather than the function (for some reason a rifle with a pistol grip or thumbhole stock is more dangerous than the same rifle with a straight stock). If you are saying that all semi automatic (by definition a weapon that fires one shot per pull of the trigger) weapons are assault weapons that covers everything from my grandfathers .22 rifle, to my .357 revolver, to the ar-15 as they all share this trait.

    Him: Again, I've no interest in a debate on the issues -- policy minutiae only matter insofar as it highlights a value which is part of a broader narrative on guns. We all know the extremist conservative narrative "Bla bla constitution, 2nd amendment, founding fathers, liberty, guard against gov tyranny, police can't be everywhere but criminals can, criminals don't obey gun laws so law-abiding citizens need guns, only thing stops bad guy with gun is good guy with gun, an infringement on gun rights is an infringement on our freedom bla bla" Yawn. Now, you've been able to get away with pushing extremist positions on guns (which are massively out of touch with the vast majority of Americans) because my side has let your narrative run unopposed. Most of the time Democrats waffle on the gun issue and end up coming off as Republican light -- that doesn't win swing voters. We have to stand up and lead on this issue because it's too ****ing important not to. Leading means building associations in voters' minds between the NRA/Republican stance on guns and radicalism, paranoia and anti-american values. Would that voters voted rationally, then I'd love to have a rational debate on policy points -- but people vote with their guts, not their brains and so it is that you're radical, child killer enabling, anti-american, unpatriotic extremists who put the rights of felons before the rights of families. That narrative wins swing voters and allows us to pass the legislation necessary to curtail these senseless massacres.

  2. #2
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-31-05
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Posts
    1,507
    Him: No, I've no interest in debating facts
    Him: Again, I've no interest in a debate on the issues
    Hasn't he therefore conceded defeat?
    “It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.”
    — Thomas Sowell

  3. #3
    New Member  
    Join Date
    10-15-10
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    5
    That's the problem with zealots. Nothing matters, save the desired results. He is willing to defame, destroy or subjugate those who don't believe like he does. I wish I could say he is a outlier on the extreme side of the anti gun crowd, but it looks more and more like he is becomming the norm.

  4. #4
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-20-12
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    213
    Normally when you argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level. You did a good job in your conversation with him, much better than I could ever have done. I don't think I could keep my anger in check, who ever brainwashed him did a good job. Good luck in any further conversations with him, he seems to be a true believer in his leftist beliefs as we are in our right beliefs.

    Ever wonder why it's called the right? Not me.
    When and how did I become a senior member? Remember don't drink the Kool-aid!!

    J.J.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •