Through arguing with these people

[shotty]

Was at a Christmas party today and the gun debate or discussion insued. There wasn't any yelling or pounding of fists, just simple talking about the issues. Thoughts varied. One guy said you can hunt with an AR, but most don't, he continued that the AR was meant for killing people. A cowboy replied, " dam right they can kill people", he said further, "the second amendment wasn't written to protect our hunting rights, it a written to protect our personal rights of freedom from tyranny." Thought he made a great point.

 

[OliverKlohzoff]

I just point blank ask people if they know what the purpose of the 2nd Ammendment to the Contitution of the United States is and what it's purpose is. Many know that it deals with the right to own firearms. Pretty much nobody knows it real purpose. I tell them the 2nd Ammendment was put into place so citizens of the United States of America could protect themselves from tyranny from their own governement. The 2nd Ammendment was NOT put into place for home self defense and for hunting. It was put into place to protect "we the people" from an out of control governement. I then tell them if they feel that is wrong, they need to change the Constitution of the United States. Until them.............. quit talking out your a$$ and get a clue what you're talking about.

Works great !

 

[Free Trapper]

Their minds are made up...don't try to confuse them with the facts.

 

[bigbang]

I just point blank ask people if they know what the purpose of the 2nd Ammendment to the Contitution of the United States is and what it's purpose is. Many know that it deals with the right to own firearms. Pretty much nobody knows it real purpose. I tell them the 2nd Ammendment was put into place so citizens of the United States of America could protect themselves from tyranny from their own governement. The 2nd Ammendment was NOT put into place for home self defense and for hunting. It was put into place to protect "we the people" from an out of control governement. I then tell them if they feel that is wrong, they need to change the Constitution of the United States. Until them.............. quit talking out your a$$ and get a clue what you're talking about.

Works great !

If that happens then our Constitution is not protected from any changes, even from the freedom of speech. Once you change "shall not be infringed" all bets are off. The framers of our Constitution absolutely restricted any gun ban from its citizens. It is a "right" given by God and preceded the forming of our great United States.

 

[Glocktogo]

So, what is the limit, do we let people have WMD's - This is a typical straw-man. How do they compare small arms (rifles & pistols) to WMD's?....absurd in its conception.

Technically its reductio ad absurdum, not straw-man.

As far as people asking me why I "need" an assault rifle, I respond in my best James Cromwell voice:

I'm sorry. My responses are limited. You must ask the right questions.

Seriously, why do they "need" to know? I'd rather debate their "need" to ask the question than my need to have an object. Their "need" for an answer that fits into their philosophy seems all consuming. If I see a glimmer of hope, I might ask them if they're willing to consider alternate thoughts on the subject. If so, I'll ask them if they value property rights? I'll ask them if they value individual freedom as a cornerstone of our democratic republic? I'll ask them if they've considered any other possible solutions before arriving at the conclusion that the best one is to severely restrict the property rights of lawful citizens? I'll also ask them if they've considered the efficacy of their solution to ban personal property?

The world has become an overwhelmingly complex place to live. We've constructed an entirely artificial existence from the whims of our fellow man. Every law beyond the basic mala in se "common laws", is the result of man's expectation that others should protect him from his own foolishness and errors. Every year, we continue to beg for more laws in the name of "decency" or "security" that do nothing to further our claims to be a free society. We never bother dismantling outdated or ineffective laws, we simply heap another layer on top of the old rotting laws like a landfill. Are we really so arrogant as to believe that after spending 236 years making laws, one more will suddenly make us safe? That it will make us a decent people?

I'd contend that a significant segment of our population have constructed a false idol in the law. They now place a piece of paper with the signatures of lawmakers above God. The answers everyone need do not reside within a stone edifice built on a swamp. They reside within ourselves and our souls. Do we really want to shackle ourselves from ourselves?

 

[sanjuro893]

what do you mean "these people"?

These people who think they know what's best for me. These people who think I don't have a basic human right to be free and defend my life from violence and tyranny. These people who believe in a "one size fits all" form of gov't....... just as long as they agree with it. These people who should try their solutions in their part of the country and leave us to do our solutions in our part of the country.
I'm sick of all of them, if they don't get it by now, they never will. My uncle (nam vet and lover of AK's) told his brother in law (my other uncle, hater of all things conservative and civics teacher) the reason he needs an assault rifle is for when his family and neighbors no longer think he needs an assault rifle.
...... I thought it was a brilliant answer.

 

[Shadowrider]

Technically its reductio ad absurdum, not straw-man.

As far as people asking me why I "need" an assault rifle, I respond in my best James Cromwell voice:

Seriously, why do they "need" to know? I'd rather debate their "need" to ask the question than my need to have an object. Their "need" for an answer that fits into their philosophy seems all consuming. If I see a glimmer of hope, I might ask them if they're willing to consider alternate thoughts on the subject. If so, I'll ask them if they value property rights? I'll ask them if they value individual freedom as a cornerstone of our democratic republic? I'll ask them if they've considered any other possible solutions before arriving at the conclusion that the best one is to severely restrict the property rights of lawful citizens? I'll also ask them if they've considered the efficacy of their solution to ban personal property?

The world has become an overwhelmingly complex place to live. We've constructed an entirely artificial existence from the whims of our fellow man. Every law beyond the basic mala in se "common laws", is the result of man's expectation that others should protect him from his own foolishness and errors. Every year, we continue to beg for more laws in the name of "decency" or "security" that do nothing to further our claims to be a free society. We never bother dismantling outdated or ineffective laws, we simply heap another layer on top of the old rotting laws like a landfill. Are we really so arrogant as to believe that after spending 236 years making laws, one more will suddenly make us safe? That it will make us a decent people?

I'd contend that a significant segment of our population have constructed a false idol in the law. They now place a piece of paper with the signatures of lawmakers above God. The answers everyone need do not reside within a stone edifice built on a swamp. They reside within ourselves and our souls. Do we really want to shackle ourselves from ourselves?

(see bolded part above) Exactly! Their argument fails before it's even established as a legitimate debate.

As to the rest of your post, I've long thought that our government is broken beyond repair simply because of all of the layers upon layers of law. And that most libs claiming to be religious really aren't. Their ideology and tactics just doesn't jive with it.

 

[808racer]

I got tangled up in a FB debate last week as well. Same story. I explained the true reason for 2A yet they still kept asking the same question: "yeah but why does the average civilian need an assault rifle?" "They only had muskets back then" It was like they couldn't comprehend English. I tried to use the analogy that "assault" rifles, handguns, and whatever else has evolved since 1789 are all protected in the same way that the Internet, email, social media, etc are all covered by the first amendment. And if we open the door to taking away 2A, what's to stop them from taking away the others. One responder actually said "I would gladly give up my civil liberties if it saved even one life somewhere down the road", and then her small minded friends readily agreed!

At that point I became convinced that we are totally screwed.

 

[gun001guns]

Last night I was at my in laws and the great debate broke out. My brother in law a hunter and gun owner said he doesn't think people should be able to own "assault weapons" or "high capacity mags". He contended that the only people who have or "need" those kind of guns are criminals and followed up by saying "you don't need "guns like that" to defend your hoe or family. "When was the last time someone invaded a home or etc with an assault weapon so why do "we" need those king of guns. My Aunt an avid Obama supporter readily agreed.

This is how I responded: Drugs are illegal right? Both agreed. I sad law enforcement session billions of dollars a year fighting drugs. Both agreed. I then said that drugs can be had readily even right here in our little town and in every other town in the US. Again both agreed. I then said if drugs are illegal and still readily available then explain to me how gun control and more restrictive laws are going to lower crime? Neither could elaborate.

I also pointed out that only law abiding citizens obey laws and that s what makes criminals "criminals". I also pointed out as a LEO I want to carry a at least equally and preferably better gun than the guys I'm going after and why should the defense of my home be any different.

I also would like to say to those who make the argument that "assault weapons" we're not meant to be covered by the framers of our constitution and bill of rights that civilians at that time owned and possessed the same type of rifles as used by the military. Moving forward to current times owning an AR or AK is a bare minimum we should have the right to own hen considering the advanced weapons today's military possess.

We're free because of that and we'll sty free by keeping that right!

 

[flatwins]

Fortunately I am not exposed to anti-gunners on a regular basis. I just don't have the patience to argue with them. I also contend that anyone who is an anti-gunner but has ever done an illegal drug in their life should shut their yapper now; they have directly contradicted their point that if guns were outlawed there would be no guns.