Wow, just wow

[mcjon77]

I have tons of liberal friends. The difference is that they are REAL FRIENDS, not just people that I casually know.

The reason why I bring that up is that if the person is a REAL FRIEND then they KNOW YOU and your personality. My friends know that I am not some murderous psycho. When my friends find out about my firearms (particularly my anti-gun friends) they usually ask why. I am able to discuss the issue with them and dispel some myths. Because these are my FRIENDS, they are at least OPEN to hearing the other side, without getting into some liberal/conservative Democrat/Republican nonsense.

Even amongst people that are self-declared "anti-gunners", I have found that with additional information there position changes (sometimes a little, sometimes A LOT). WE HAVE INFORMATION ON OUR SIDE! The more I educate an anti-gunner, the less anti-gun they become. In my experience, the LEAST shift that has occurred was multiple friends dropping the "gun owners are terrified nutjobs who want to kill someone in order to compensate for their small package." For those people, the conversation usually shifts to "Well, I can understand why YOU have a gun and have no problem with it, BUT I am concerned about the other guys."

However, I have also had MULTIPLE former anti-gunner friends who have later come to me and ask for advice on what firearms to purchase or where to get concealed carry training, particularly the women. I have had several ask to go to the range with me (tip: DON'T try to show them how macho you are by giving them some hand cannon that they cannot control. Start them out with a 22lr).

If we want to preserve and EXPAND our gun rights, we MUST begin converting people that we would normally consider on the "left" or "liberal" to our side. If we don't, THEY WILL WIN. I said before that we have information on our side, however they will have NUMBERS on their side. We cannot let the hardcore anti-gunners in the left be the only voice that the rest of the left will hear. Right now, that is the case. It doesn't help when we hear gun rights activists refer to liberals and people on the left as "libtards" etc.

The true HARDCORE anti-gunners are really a small percentage of the left. It is a VASTLY smaller percentage of the left than the hardcore 2nd Amendment folks are on the right. I know VERY few hardcore conservatives that are anti-gun, I know TONS of hardcore liberals that are pro-gun AND concealed carriers. As we open up a respectful dialog with people on the left (as individuals) I KNOW that we can make great strides.

 

[Bennettjh]

I kinda like being called sick and twisted. And don't forget evil.

Yeah that's not bad. Most of us have probably been called worse.

I'd just ignore that "friend".

 

[Tanfodude]

You should have replied "Yup, just like we don't really need short buses in a society, yet here you are."

 

[Spike Jones 5 2002]

Excerpt from an email a "friend" sent me recently. The only thing I have ever killed or maimed is some sheets of paper stapled to a backboard. I must think of a reasoned response:

I suppose it wouldn't be right for me to share what a sick, twisted person you are as an AR-15 owner. It has one and ONLY one purpose, for killing and maiming as many people as quickly as possible. Not only should it be illegal to have one, it shouldn't need to be because anyone who'd want one must have something terribly wrong with them.
Just words from our liberal "friend". Or how you carry a gun around because you fantasize about getting in a gun battle and shooting a "bad guy"

​

I would look the person straight in the eye.
I would ask them if they would own a weapon that kills more MEN, WOMAN and CHILDREN world wide.
It sends more people to the hospital. Destroys more families. it is used in just about every crime committed.
Ask why someone would want own a CAR.

 

[Spear Dane]

"Thank you for the time and effort you spent in composing this email and sharing your opinion with me. As a lawful gun owner I can assure you that I am neither sick nor twisted, as such people are barred from the lawful ownership of firearms.

The AR-15 was originally developed as a modern sporting rifle, and is enjoyed by many for that purpose. There are quite literally millions of these firearms in circulation, and the overwhelming majority of which are owned and used without causing harm to anyone. According to the FBI's statistics there were 248 murders with all types of rifle, not just AR-15s, for the entire year of 2015.

Out of a recorded 11,961 murders in the United States only 2% were as a result of all rifles and not just AR-15s. By comparison 1567 were murdered with knives, which is 13% of total murders for 2015. Knives were used 6.5 times more than any rifle to commit murder. It is not an exaggeration to say that you are more likely to be struck by lightening or attacked by a shark than you are to be killed with any rifle.

People choose to exercise their ability to defend themselves and their loved ones for a variety of reasons. I believe that I have a right to life, and the cornerstone of that right is the ability to protect myself. To that end I choose the most effective tool that I have available. While many of us acknowledge that if presented with deadly force we may be obliged to respond in kind to protect ourselves or those that we love none of us salivate at the thought of it.

I am sorry that your view of gun owners is at odds with the person that you called a friend. Moreover I am sorry that you were not comfortable to come and talk to me in person as it appears that I have misjudged our friendship. I hope that some day you will look beyond the lazy caricature that is presented of millions of law abiding Americans. Until that day I wish you well"

Where did this come from? It's really good.

 

[Shalashaska]

Haters gonna hate

 

[ATM]

...The person who wrote that is clearly trying to evoke a response from you, so why take the bait and reward them?

Because it's such fun to make them eat every silly morsel they attempted to dish out.

 

[oldpink]

That snarky e-mail would call for but one response: a photo of my own bare ass with a caption below..."KISS ME"

 

[OakRiver]

Where did this come from? It's really good.

I made it up on the fly

 

[T.Lex]

FYI, this individual cannot own firearms due to a D-felony conviction. Maybe just jealous he can't have his own.

Perhaps it is a bit of juvenile if-I-can't-have-one-no-one-can.

BTW, they've relaxed the rules about expungement. He should look into it.

Where did this come from? It's really good.

The dude's Irish. Eloquence is genetic.

I made it up on the fly

Braggard.

 

[bb37]

"Thank you for the time and effort...

It is not an exaggeration to say that you are more likely to be struck by lightening or attacked by a shark than you are to be killed with any rifle.

...Until that day I wish you well"

Nice explanation, but it will probably fall on deaf ears. BTW, "lightening" should be "lightning".

Yes, it's design resembles a real issued military weapon. Our founding fathers used weapons owned by civilians against a tyrannical government. .

And, the point often missed by folks who claim the founding fathers never had "military-style" guns in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment often fail to understand that the "Brown Bess" muzzle-loading smooth bore musket, while far removed from an AR-15, was the standard military long gun of the day and was readily available to the colonists who founded this country. In other words, you can't say that the founding fathers didn't intend for us to have access to "military-style" guns when it's clear that the founding fathers were talking about guns that were being used by the military.

Everyone has the right to their opinion. The problem is when they try to force it down your throat.

And, this is where the conversation can get very difficult.

Let's say I run a bakery. Among other things, I bake wedding cakes. Let's further say that my religious beliefs tell me that gay marriage is a sin. So, you come to me and ask me to bake a cake for your gay wedding. I say "no". Is it right for me to deny service to you just because you're gay? Is it right for the government to force me to serve you in violation of my religious beliefs? This is where the forcing of someone else's opinions down your throat can get to be a bit sticky.

I believe that there have been recent surveys done which indicate that the majority of U.S. citizens are against an "assault weapons ban". We should let the majority rule. The minority will still have their opinions. But, as long as they are still in the minority, their opinion should not carry the day. The problem is that we keep electing lawmakers who ignore majority opinion and pander to the minority opinions. Think about this when you cast your vote this year.

I don't have a lot of friends. I would hate to lose one over my ownership of an AR-15. But, I would also have a really hard time with the idea of selling my AR-15 just to keep a friend.

 

[ATM]

...And, this is where the conversation can get very difficult.

Nothing tricky here.

Let's say I run a bakery. Among other things, I bake wedding cakes. Let's further say that my religious beliefs tell me that gay marriage is a sin. So, you come to me and ask me to bake a cake for your gay wedding. I say "no". Is it right for me to deny service to you just because you're gay?

Is it your right to deny services for any or no reason? Yes. (Rightness or wrongness of your reasoning, based on your own values, is a separate and lesser matter of consideration)

Is it right for the government to force me to serve you in violation of my religious beliefs?

Absolutely not, by any definition of the word 'right'.

This is where the forcing of someone else's opinions down your throat can get to be a bit sticky.

Not sticky at all. Initiating force is clearly wrong.

I believe that there have been recent surveys done which indicate that the majority of U.S. citizens are against an "assault weapons ban". We should let the majority rule.

Mob rule is not the answer, even when you agree with what they propose.

The minority will still have their opinions. But, as long as they are still in the minority, their opinion should not carry the day.

No opinion should carry the day. The minority would always be fodder for majority victimization without recourse. Rule of man.

The problem is that we keep electing lawmakers who ignore majority opinion and pander to the minority opinions.

Still an example of the rule of man, simply reversed.

Think about this when you cast your vote this year.

I won't be voting, but I will be thinking.

I don't have a lot of friends. I would hate to lose one over my ownership of an AR-15. But, I would also have a really hard time with the idea of selling my AR-15 just to keep a friend.

So long as nobody initiates force and it remains your choice, I don't care which choice you make. If 99% wanted to make that choice for you, I would stand with you against them despite my own personal opinion.

lovemachine had it right, it boils down to force.

 

[Hopper]

And, the point often missed by folks who claim the founding fathers never had "military-style" guns in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment often fail to understand that the "Brown Bess" muzzle-loading smooth bore musket, while far removed from an AR-15, was the standard military long gun of the day and was readily available to the colonists who founded this country. In other words, you can't say that the founding fathers didn't intend for us to have access to "military-style" guns when it's clear that the founding fathers were talking about guns that were being used by the military.

When I get rebuttled on the whole 2nd Ammendment argument about "muskets", I remind whoever is trying to help me understand their liberal logic that the word "musket" is NOT referenced anywhere in the 2nd, anymore than "printing press" is referenced in the 1st. Truly, if it was meant to apply ONLY to the "muskets" of the time, I think the founding fathers would have clearly indicated as much. The term "Arms" was chosen purposefully. Just my 2 cents, and I'm with you on this front.

I'm not completely a fan of "majority rule", though. That pendulum can swing both ways. There are a lot of easily influenced mindsets in this country, so how hard would it be to convince 51% of the population of one thing over another? Take the Indiana LTCH process, for example. I have a very close high school buddy who is insistent that it's irresponsible for a person to have a LTCH without the proper training. While I absolutely don't disagree with the importance of good training, it is not a legal requirement for the IN process, but I bet you could get a majority of voters in the state of IN to agree with this requirement without too much effort. To wit, what other rights does the Constitution contain that requires training to exercise? There is a process to change the law, but until then, I think it's unfair to demonize a law-abiding citizen exercising their rights in a perfectly legal way, just because the majority thinks exercising that right should be done with caveats.

I know I'm splitting hairs on the "majority rule" thoughts... it's a great idea until the majority thinks differently than we do.

 

[Excalibur]

I always break down these types of argument to pretty much questioning the anti's character. He/She has no trust in anybody at all if they have the ability to defend themselves. They don't trust their neighbors, their friends, their families with the means to protect themselves because deep down they are afraid. I tell them they are irresponsible because the don't want the responsibility to protect their own life. They'd rather live life "easy" letting someone else protect them, something more powerful than them in control of their lives. That they live in a fantasy where the world is full of sunshine and rainbows

I don't avoid debates with these people. I confront them head out if the subject is brought up in public, online, anywhere because you don't make change preaching to the choir.

 

[Hookeye]

You won't change their minds.

But you might (in addressing these fools) educate those on the sidelines.

Remember your real audience.

 

[natdscott]

"[Y]ou feel that way." Then, no further communication.

Fixed it for you, Mssr. Director.

There is no "Sorry".

-Nate

 

[ATM]

...Remember your real audience.

Absolutely. An otherwise futile argument with one person can be used to sway countless others.

 

[Hookeye]

I have no liberal friends.

None.

Liberals are the enemy, always have been. To hell with them.

 

[indyblue]

Nice explanation, but it will probably fall on deaf ears. BTW, "lightening" should be "lightning".



And, the point often missed by folks who claim the founding fathers never had "military-style" guns in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment often fail to understand that the "Brown Bess" muzzle-loading smooth bore musket, while far removed from an AR-15, was the standard military long gun of the day and was readily available to the colonists who founded this country. In other words, you can't say that the founding fathers didn't intend for us to have access to "military-style" guns when it's clear that the founding fathers were talking about guns that were being used by the military.



And, this is where the conversation can get very difficult.

Let's say I run a bakery. Among other things, I bake wedding cakes. Let's further say that my religious beliefs tell me that gay marriage is a sin. So, you come to me and ask me to bake a cake for your gay wedding. I say "no". Is it right for me to deny service to you just because you're gay? Is it right for the government to force me to serve you in violation of my religious beliefs? This is where the forcing of someone else's opinions down your throat can get to be a bit sticky.

I believe that there have been recent surveys done which indicate that the majority of U.S. citizens are against an "assault weapons ban". We should let the majority rule. The minority will still have their opinions. But, as long as they are still in the minority, their opinion should not carry the day. The problem is that we keep electing lawmakers who ignore majority opinion and pander to the minority opinions. Think about this when you cast your vote this year.

I don't have a lot of friends. I would hate to lose one over my ownership of an AR-15. But, I would also have a really hard time with the idea of selling my AR-15 just to keep a friend.

(note: I don't disagree with your statement above) But aren't we supposed to be a democratic republic specifically to prevent mob (majority) rule? That is the weakness of democracies, once 51% threshold is met it is almost never able to be overcome. The republic allows a minorities to have a little more weight in order to balance things and is the purpose of the electoral college. The various portions of the populace are supposed to compromise between each other to get a majority agreement (although I don't think there is much room for compromise in the 2nd A, it is a pretty clear statement of rights and I believe the AWB and NFA to be unconstitutional).

 

[OakRiver]

The dude's Irish. Eloquence is genetic.

At least in written form

Nice explanation, but it will probably fall on deaf ears. BTW, "lightening" should be "lightning".

Thank you, and I have corrected the spelling