Making the right arguments

[LSUTiger]

There are a lot of arguments out there that both anti gunners and pro second amendment folks keep repeating and that just drive me crazy. We need to start making the right arguments!

Example:


Anti-Gunner
You don't need a scary black rifle capable of using 30rd magazines and semiautomatic fire (usually they just claim they are all full auto ) for hunting!


The standard response is about self-defense, hunting and other legitimate sporting purposes. All valid arguments, but they miss the main and strongest point.

But the real answer is .......

"Of course not! The second amendment is not about hunting! It's about being able to resist against and protect our selves from tyranny and oppression from powers foreign and domestic. Primarily our own government should they go to far.

Scary black rifles like the ones our government uses are perfect for what the second amendment exists for! "

We need to argue the bigger picture instead of letting the antis continue to misrepresent the need for our guns. And if you don't believe and armed resistance is impossible to be effective (that's what they want you to believe) just turn in your guns now.



Pro-Gunner
My having/carrying a gun stops crime and helps me protect you!

Whether you OC or CC, I think has an a general effect of carrying guns is lowering crime but does not stop crimes from happening. My having a gun is intended to stop a crime against me and mine, not for the protection of the general public.

At best I'd argue that my having a gun better helps me to protect me and mine against becoming victims should we find our selves in a dangerous situation or crime in progress. It gives me a much higher chance of survivability. If someone else benefits from my having a gun then it's pure coincidence and their good fortune. I am not a sheep dog per say, only to the extent I want to protect my own flock. The rest of the sheeple are not my primary concern. If I can help others, I might, maybe, it really just depends on the situation.

And to those anti-gunners (innocent children are a completely different story) who laugh at the idea that our having a gun is going to protect them , well in a way they are right (at least from my perspective). Because letting them die so that I might escape and live to fight another day is part of my survival strategy. Thanks for the cover.


Are there any other antigun arguments or pro gun arguments that we are not properly addressing?

[Middle Age Russ]

You hit on the real answer to the typical question in your first example, but that answer will almost invariably simply flip an off-switch in the ears of the anti-gun, pro-Government, the-only-possible-reasonable-use-of-a-gun-by-a-citizen-is-hunting questioner. The moment you give them an argument that speaks to a distrust of Government or willful resistance against the Authorities, you are labeled a subversive, a right-wing-nut, etc... and anything you say MUST BE SHOUTED DOWN with correct talking points. Reasonable discourse becomes nigh on impossible where the bases are so divergent.

We must find ways to bring the bases of our reasoning closer together. Many on the Left either have no education in History and human nature or they must truly believe that their fellow modern citizens are immune to repeating history for some reason and it is therefore irrelevant. The lessons history teaches us -- that force cannot be stopped/defeated if no effort is made, that men of avarice exist and they will constantly work to consolidate power an wealth by means both legal and ethical and by means illegal and unethical, and that some of these men inevitably become tyrants if allowed to -- must somehow be given relevance in the minds of the anti-gunners before they'll begin to recognize validity and truth in our arguments.

[AJSully421]

Liberals have baseless preconceived notions about most things which are exacerbated by seeing everything through the prism of their political beliefs.

Next they exclusively engage in confirmation bias, projecting, and especially reductio ad absurdum to handle anything that does not fit the template that they have created. That is why any argument about "assault weapons" being legal will undoubtedly turn into "grenades and bazookas" .

Finally, anything that threatens their alternate reality or self-created utopia cannot be tolerated; it must be marginalized, demonized, and destroyed and they will not stop until what they do not like is gone.

This is the reason they are so venomous, so crazy, and do things like demand "safe spaces" and state that they have "rights" that do not exist and so on.

You cannot debate them, to them your views are invalid or nonexistent and not worthy of debate. You can not reason with them, they are not reasonable. You will never take anyone who is hardcore anti-gun and be able to say anything to them that will suddenly make them see the light.

Think about it this way: What could one of these MDA mad moms say to you that would suddenly make you believe that guns are evil, gun owners are insane and will shoot you if you so much as look at them wrong, and that the Second Amendment is only about the militia, or hunting? What arguments, what phrases, what examples could they cite to make you change your mind? None? Not one? It is even worse for them. We believe that they are misguided or uninformed. They believe that we are insane and evil.

Right at the start of what might turn into an argument or debate, ask them if they have ever fired a gun. Then offer to take them shooting. If they decline, then they are too close-minded to reach with facts or logic so don't waste your time.

[KLB]

An argument gun controllers make that caused me to think is that guns are designed to kill. That is not true of automobiles, power saws, and other dangerous products. These other products, however dangerous, have peaceful and socially useful functions. The only way to confront that argument is to agree that guns are designed to kill and to point out that, sometimes, killing is necessary. See http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... _kill.html

[baldeagle]

For every pro-gun argument you can make, I can give you the anti-gun argument. For example, you say it's to protect you against the government? Are you serious? Only a crazy person would think they could fight against the government. They have tanks and smart bombs and hundreds of thousands of troops. Only nutcase militia types think that, and they'll be crushed like bugs.

The point is, the back and forth keeps the playing field from getting tilted in either direction but it doesn't make progress. It would be nice if we could find shutdown arguments that end the discussion on one or more of the issues, but it's hard when the other side is perfectly willing to lie and make up stuff to "prove" their point.

[stingeragent]

I'll agree. The other side does not care, it's like talking to a brick wall. I was looking at some comments on a MDA facebook post, and the anti's were making all sorts of posts , anti gun this, anyone with a gun is crazy that, and some pro gun person posted links to numerous statistics showing that CHL holders are responsible for less than 1% of the crimes in texas, and several anti gun folks responded back, "you posted statistics, what does that prove? guns are bad blah blah" The bottom line is they just won't listen. If they believe the sky is orange 24 hours a day, and you take them outside and tell them to look at they sky, and then show them a blue crayon, they are still gonna say its orange. It reminds me of arguing with my ex wife. It doesn't matter what you say, how much sense it makes, or that you can 100% prove it by stats that are posted by government agencies, they still will say your wrong.

[WildBill]

Many of the "arguments" I read that are posted on the internet and social sites remind me of the lyrics of the Bob Dylan song "Idiot Wind".

Idiot wind
Blowing like a circle around my skull,
From the Grand Coulee Dam to the Capitol
Idiot wind
Blowing every time you move your teeth
You're an idiot, babe.
It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe

[Ruark]

I'll agree. The other side does not care, it's like talking to a brick wall. I was looking at some comments on a MDA facebook post, and the anti's were making all sorts of posts , anti gun this, anyone with a gun is crazy that, and some pro gun person posted links to numerous statistics showing that CHL holders are responsible for less than 1% of the crimes in texas, and several anti gun folks responded back, "you posted statistics, what does that prove? guns are bad blah blah" The bottom line is they just won't listen. If they believe the sky is orange 24 hours a day, and you take them outside and tell them to look at they sky, and then show them a blue crayon, they are still gonna say its orange. It reminds me of arguing with my ex wife. It doesn't matter what you say, how much sense it makes, or that you can 100% prove it by stats that are posted by government agencies, they still will say your wrong.

This is pretty much the bottom line. Trying to convince them otherwise is like trying to convince somebody that Charlie Manson was a nice guy, or that smoking 4 packs a day is healthy. Waste of time. In their view, trained, fingerprinted, licensed LTC holders carrying concealed are the WORST kind of gun owners: "you don't know who has a gun and who doesn't!!! They could be standing right next to you!!!"

And remember, the MDA types are only part of problem. We also have the 2A extremists carrying ARs into Whataburger. We have business owners who have no idea that signage only applies to LTC holders, or even that LTCs exist. We have Fudds that don't give a flip. We have anti-gun politicians posturing for votes. We have unreachable corporate offices in New York skyscrapers ordering franchisees to post. We have broad swaths of the general public whose grasp of the issue is limited to sound bites ("college kids running around campus with guns!"). It goes far, far beyond just MDA.

And the more glaringly obvious this becomes, the more convinced I am that the only effective solution to a lot of this is going to have to be legislative. Occasionally we hear of an individual being convinced to remove his 06 sign, but I'm beginning to have grave doubts that our little PR efforts are going to have any real effect on the larger scale.

[The Annoyed Man]

STRICTLY playing the devil's advocate here.....

Don't be silly! You can't possibly take on a "tyrannical" government with just your little rifles!!!

Oh you of little faith! Ask the Vietcong or the Taliban, not to mention our original American patriots.

The founding fathers could not have conceived of the kind of firepower in civilian hands today, and did not write the 2nd Amendment with modern weapons in civilian hands in mind. It was written to protect the right to own muskets.

The founding fathers could not have conceived of high-volume web-fed 8 color newspaper printing presses, telephones, the Internet, personal computers, television, radio, cellphones, video-conferencing, email, digital cameras (or even film cameras, for that matter) etc., when they wrote the 1st Amendment. Therefore, you must surrender ALL electronic gadgetry which you use for communicating and go back to oral speech, and the hand-written word........using quill pens and liquid ink, and the hand-drawn/painted image........by candle-light.

The founding fathers wrote the 3rd Amendment in a time when the King forced colonists to quarter British troops in their private homes. It's an anachronism we can dispense with because it would never happen today.

You cannot predict the future, nobody can, so you cannot say that it will not be needed in the future. The reason it would not happen today is that there are 300+ million firearms in the hands of 100+ million firearms owners, representing 60+ million households. And of those 300+ million firearms, more than 4 million are AR15s. That 4 million does not include the AK47s and other semiautomatic modern sporting arms based on originally military designs that are in private hands.

HOWEVER the reason it needs to stay in the Constitution is for the day when your side confiscates privately owned firearms. When that happens, and after the bloodbath your side started is over, THEN you will need the protections of the "vestigial" 3rd Amendment to protect your precious self from having to quarter government troops in your home.

I could go on...... But frankly, I think that people who are SO dense about their own constitutional protections would never understand the historical, legal, and constitutional implications. There are none so ignorant as those who are willfully so.

[mojo84]

In light of the title of this thread about the proper argument, here is an article for your amusement.


http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8961082

Leviathan, Gun Control and the Baleful Legacy of the 2nd Amendment

Let me be clear from the outset. I vehemently oppose Big Government and Nanny State regulation, but also have no use for guns, find hunting distasteful and wish that James Madison had never dreamed up the Second Amendment while politicking for the Constitution. The so-called right to bear arms is truly a vestigial relic of the 18th century and has precious little to do with personal liberty or public security in the 21st century.

At the same time, I doubt whether any more Federal gun controls are possible or would reduce gun crimes against innocent citizens in a nation where 380 million guns -- 40% of the world's non-military total -- are already in circulation. In that respect President Obama is doing far more harm than good in his ceaseless agitation for tighter gun regulations and his latest feckless gambit to extend them via executive order.

That's because with zero political consensus for legislative action the only impact of Obama's provocations is to fuel the conservative anti-gun control crusade. Yet the latter is truly misbegotten; it amounts to a monumental waste of political energies and resources against the wrong target....