"Ban Rottweilers" - How to Win People Over to Supporting 2A Rights

[mugsy]

How about treating people as individuals, especially American citizens - including Muslim American citizens - but not being stupid by failing to recognize that rapidly allowing many immigrants from an area and from certain demographic groups that in large measure (not all, maybe not most, but many) oppose/fight/hate the West and US is an almost certain invitation to future significant security risks. I don't support a religion based ban but I do support a region and, lets be honest, at least partially religion based, watch list that requires extensive vetting.

Look folks, if this were WW-II we would be vetting Germans who suddenly wanted in to the United States even though now, 70 years later, we consider Germans low-risk immigrants. Maybe 70 years hence Middle Eastern/Arab/Muslim immigrants will require less vetting but right now that is not the case. For citizens, your background doesn't matter only your actions do but for those not yet here, I expect the Federal government to exercise due diligence before letting people in.

 

[YukonGlocker]

How do you changing people's minds and bring them around to supporting gun rights? Perhaps by putting yourself in their shoes for a second to understand their fears. And by avoiding polarizing statements. That is the gist of this interesting article...

Yeah, you could take this directly from a Persuasion chapter in nearly any Introductory Psychology textbook. The problem with this approach in the gun control debate is it assumes there is consensus about the rights the 2nd Amendment guarantees, and there isn't. There's a substantial and growing sector of the population that doesn't think the 2nd guarantees unrestricted rights to guns, so that hurdle has to be jumped before making the rights argument.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

The main problem with the dog/gun analogy is that left it its own devices, a gun will never injure a person. It requires the manipulation of a person (or really smart animal) to injure or kill a person. A dog, on its own, my kill or injure a person.

 

[soonerwings]

Yeah, you could take this directly from a Persuasion chapter in nearly any Introductory Psychology textbook. The problem with this approach in the gun control debate is it assumes there is consensus about the rights the 2nd Amendment guarantees, and there isn't. There's a substantial and growing sector of the population that doesn't think the 2nd guarantees unrestricted rights to guns, so that hurdle has to be jumped before making the rights argument.

Seems to me that there's a "substantial and growing" sector of the population that doesn't believe that other rights expressed as absolute weren't meant to be absolute either.

 

[YukonGlocker]

Seems to me that there's a "substantial and growing" sector of the population that doesn't believe that other rights expressed as absolute weren't meant to be absolute either.

Probably so, but the idea proposed by this thread's title "how to win people over to supporting 2A rights", and following method, is fundamentally flawed. Persuading people that rights are rights is another issue.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

There's a substantial and growing sector of the population that doesn't think the 2nd guarantees unrestricted rights to guns, so that hurdle has to be jumped before making the rights argument.

Is there anyone that thinks the second guarantees unrestricted rights to guns? The first doesn't protect the right to yell fire in a crowded theater and the second doesn't allow a person serving time in prison unrestricted rights to guns. There has always been some restrictions on firearms and always will be. As it should be.

 

[soonerwings]

Is there anyone that thinks the second guarantees unrestricted rights to guns? The first doesn't protect the right to yell fire in a crowded theater and the second doesn't allow a person serving time in prison unrestricted rights to guns. There has always been some restrictions on firearms and always will be. As it should be.

You bring up an excellent point for discussion. Were the 1st and 2nd amendments SUPPOSED to guarantee unrestricted rights? The SCOTUS (obfuscater of last resort) has said "no," but they were written as absolute. These are two groups of very smart people. On the one hand, absolute rights may not be a good thing. On the other hand, maybe...just maybe the drafters of the Bill of Rights thought about that and left them as absolute on purpose?

I'm not pretending to have the answer.

 

[YukonGlocker]

Is there anyone that thinks the second guarantees unrestricted rights to guns? The first doesn't protect the right to yell fire in a crowded theater and the second doesn't allow a person serving time in prison unrestricted rights to guns. There has always been some restrictions on firearms and always will be. As it should be.

Yes, several on this forum. I'm not disagreeing with the point you make here, because it's a good one; and it feeds directly into the problems inherent with making a "rights" argument.

 

[Dave70968]

The first doesn't protect the right to yell fire in a crowded theater.

• Ken White, over at Popehat, is a very smart, very knowledgeable First Amendment lawyer. You should read his comments. This one, too.
• At the time the Second Amendment was drafted, it was common for private citizens to have better weaponry than the government, including cannons and even warships.

 

[Dale00]

• Ken White, over at Popehat, is a very smart, very knowledgeable First Amendment lawyer. You should read his comments. This one, too.
• At the time the Second Amendment was drafted, it was common for private citizens to have better weaponry than the government, including cannons and even warships.

I also encourage you to read the source article by Popehat linked in the first post. (A little bird told me that some of you did not read it)
Talking Productively About Guns

Here is the intro as a teaser:

I confess from the start of this: I enjoy unproductive talk. Boasting, bloviating, berating, shouting, snarking, and swearing are all pleasures, indulged with little if any guilt. My purpose is not to condemn such behavior. How could I? We just brought on Marc Randazza and the man swears like a drunken Newark stevedore with his dick caught in a French press.

At least most of the time, I grasp that my self-indulgence doesn't accomplish much. It pleases me, it entertains like-minded people, and it reaffirms that which people already believe.

But it doesn't persuade. It neither seeks nor finds common ground.

Much of our modern American dialogue about gun rights and gun control is like that. We yell, we signal to the like-minded, we circle our wagons, we take shots at opponents. But we don't change minds.