This is what we're up against ...

[mc5aw]

I tried having a rational discussion last eve (online) with an acquaintance who is exceedingly left leaning. Known this person for over a decade, have always differed on socio-political beliefs, occasionally gotten into heated discussions, but consistently maintained civility. Well, suffice it to say, this person showed her true anti colors last night when she inferred that my support of the 2nd Amendment right is promotion of "a right to kill." I was outraged ... I was disgusted ... I was offended by such a grotesque characterization. But then it dawned on me ... this was not a random individual sentiment, but rather, the voice of an entire demographic ... a group of hypocrites and self righteous fanatics who believe they have proprietary entitlement to Constitutional interpretation, and feel empowered to deem what rights can be selectively allotted to those other than themselves. This person was immediately deleted from my database, never to be dealt with again. However, I neglected to thank her for giving me a clear picture of what we, as proponents of 2A and the shooting sports, are faced with as an adversary. The NRA is our line of defense ... it is the only resource strong enough to fairly represent us in the face of such shameful hate-speak and hate-thought.

 

[Beemerguy53]

The hypocrisy of these leftist gun-banners is sickening.

Gun banners don't want us to be able to defend ourselves, but they won't support capital punishment for killers.

They exploit the murders of children as a means to limit our rights...but they will not tolerate even the slightest restrictions on the rights they deem important. (And I don't want to be more explicit lest I violate the rules here.)

The Administration is pledging quick action on banning guns and magazines, yet this same Administration allowed the illegal sale of those same guns to Mexican drug lords.

Like I said, the hypocrisy is sickening...

 

[jkc]

Congratulations! You've had the epiphany that to too many of us is too late coming --- we aren't engaged in polite,rational discourse with reasonable people, we're engaged in an outright culture war. The lunatic fringe, which includes a disturbing number of politicians, most members of most media outlets, and hordes of knee-jerk ignoramuses don't just want "reasonable measures" --- they hate you, and they hate me, and most of my friends, and some of my relatives, because we own some inanimate objects. They accuse us of being responsible for the tragedies caused by crazed killers. They hold you, and me, and our friends and compatriots personally accountable for the sins of others. This is irrationality in extremis. There's no argument, however cogent or convincing, no preponderance of evidence, that would persuade most of these kooks of the error of their opinions. You can't have a give and take discussion with zealots --- they're all take, no give. You're well advised to cease communications with this person --- it will improve your blood pressure, and free up time and energy to do something constructive for our side in the culture war...

 

[mc5aw]

What I bristle at most is when these types of fanatics maximize and exploit their 1st Amendment rights to demonize and diminish our 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[Hillbilly77]

What I bristle at most is when these types of fanatics maximize and exploit their 1st Amendment rights to demonize and diminish our 2nd Amendment rights.

Especially when you consider that our 2nd Amendment rights are the very rights that help to protect all else, including the 1st Amenment that allows them to spew their anti-gun rhetoric.

 

[Sprefix]

Rationalizing with the irrational is difficult at best. They will only learn when it is too late. At some point, you may have to save just yourself.

 

[ordy]

we aren't engaged in polite,rational discourse with reasonable people

Any discussion I've ever had with regard to 2A has been futile. It's like arguing abortion, politics or religion. In these discussions, emotion overrules logic virtually every time. All we can do is to calmly state the facts as we see them and move on. The aim must be to educate and not argue.

 

[Big Fred]

It's like wrestling match with a pig in the mud. Sooner or later you finally realize the pig enjoys it.

 

[wheelgun28]

Some folks just live in backwards world, criminals are victims, right is wrong wrong is right, guns are bad drugs are great.

 

[Faulkner]

The void between the left leaning Brady clan and gun owners is too great for a compromise. They think destroying all guns will be the start of utopia and the government will protect us, and we think destroying all guns will be the beginning of the government enslaving it's citizens. Doesn't leave much room for middle ground.

 

[sipowicz]

You mentioned "her." Where 20 little children murdered you will have more emotion in the argument, especailly from women. I think that's natural if they have any maternal instinct at all. My wife started railing against "assault" weapons also....up unti the Conn. shooting, she had no problem with them....best to let it go with the fairer sex for now.

 

[Combat]

Don't argue with them people, you can't fix STUPID.

 

[jaykellogg]

This person was immediately deleted from my database, never to be dealt with again.

This is an appropriate reaction.

I am 67 years old and I have been a gun owner since I was 20. In the slightly over 47 years I have been a gun owner I have never held a gun and thought "gee, I would like to go shoot somebody". I enjoy buying guns, showing them off, shooting them, heck, I even enjoy cleaning them.

You cannot have a rational discussion regarding limiting access to guns after 20 beautiful children were shot.

I don't heartily agree with the NRA's suggestion that we train and arm guards. IMO, what would result would look more like the TSA. I suppose you could harden the entrances to these schools. Also there have been school shootings in the past where armed security has been present.

In a year's time, not many children are shot at school. You will NEVER get anywhere with this argument though. If you want to spend $500,000,000,000 to protect children from being shot in school to save maybe 20 kids a year, If you spend that in other areas you may save thousands of deaths of children. Still the argument has no place in the discussion about guns.

To a gun hater, the solution is simple, ban guns. Start slow, like ban "assault" rifles first. In the '60s and '70s it was "Saturday night specials". Then "Dum dum" bullets. They will tell you "we only want to limit this one thing". I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. I can remember the gun banners saying they would never touch rifles or shotguns. They wanted to ban these cheap easily concealable handguns (only).

My local newspaper has a column written suggesting banning guns and comparing gun deaths in the USA vs. other countries. Of course she picked and chose which countries to compare. One she mentioned was Great Britain. Well, GB had a school gun massacre in 1996. Apparently afterward the laws got more strict. The British Olympic pistol team has to travel out of the country to practice. GB doesn't report murders like the USA. Just the difference in reporting alone would account for a higher murder rate here. Then if you only look at the murder rate where guns are used the difference becomes bigger. Well, GB has had a lower gun murder rate for over 100 years. This is since before there was any difference in the laws in GB vs. the USA. From that alone you could conclude that the extremely restrictive laws in GB have really had no positive effect. Then during WWII when the invasion of GB by Germany looked like a very real possibility the USA bailed the British out by sending small arms by the thousands.

In conclusion, I have not heard one fresh argument for banning all guns or a certain type of weapon. The killings in CT sicken me and the suspicion that the gun haters are using this to further their own gun ban agenda is sickening also. At the point I am at, the only effective argument is to tell a politician that you do not vote for or contribute to politicians who vote to ban guns. I recently rejoined the NRA. IMO, union members will have to make a choice. My brother's union the CWA sent out a memo to members saying that Barack Obama was pro gun ownership. The Clinton assault weapon and hi cap magazine ban had no positive effect on crime, but the gun haters just say it didn't go far enough.

 

[brucev]

Thank you for this post. I have thoughts I'd like to express on this matter. But, I am concerned that in doing so it would be perceived as unacceptable. So... I'll make an "argument from silence." Perhaps it is golden. We'll see.

 

[Moonman]

The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution are also know as "THE BILL OF RIGHTS,"

They are not a PICK AND CHOOSE affair.

They re[resent years of our countries mentors thoughts and compromises.

I really enjoy their thoughts of, "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW."

 

[Joe Kent]

The problem ,which we all are aware of, is they vote and in this last election, their side won. Now we must hold the line and try to salvage our freedoms before we no longer have the means to do so. I am so mad at those gun owners who let "other issues" decide their votes, and quite frankly, there was a heck of alot of them. Any thinking man or woman saw this push coming the minute the election was over. The enemy is inside the gate and now we have to push them back. Stay strong and don't give up. Joe.

 

[redlevel]

I got this message from a former student of mine who is now a Ph.D at a nearby university. I had "shared" a Facebook NRA post. In part he told me . . . .

You're transparently rationalizing to appease your own conscience, as you should. Otherwise, you might recognize the blood on your own hands.

How nice for me that his opinion of me means nothing. It is illustrative of what we are up against, though.

 

[jaykellogg]

About 50 people are killed in a year's time by illegal street racing.
About 20 are killed each year by domestic dogs.
Over 50 children are killed annually by being backed over by an automobile
About 2300 people die every year in accidents caused by texting while driving
9878 people died last year in alcohol related crashes. (Two states recently legalized Pot, what do you suppose the result of that will be?)

None of these (except alcohol, 21st amendment) is protected by the US constitution. Prohibition was widely considered a failure in spite of the fact that alcohol consumption was lower during prohibition.

 

[GatorFarmer]

You mentioned "her." Where 20 little children murdered you will have more emotion in the argument, especailly from women. I think that's natural if they have any maternal instinct at all. My wife started railing against "assault" weapons also....up unti the Conn. shooting, she had no problem with them....best to let it go with the fairer sex for now.

My wife asked me how many AR15s I had. When I told her she was aghast. She had been hoping that I had a secret stash with more of them. We have four children. The trick is to marry a Navy woman. They will be messed up in all sorts of ways, but being sentimental about things they cannot change is not a problem.

There are a couple of single Chiefs at the Navy hospital if someone wants one.

 

[Joewisc]

Whiile I can understand the OP's visceral reaction, I believe it's better to try to maintain long relationships, however strained. I, too, have a liberal friend for 20 years and we go at it constantly but have been able to stay civil with each other. After hours of debates, one of the other of us will always wind up saying: "Of course, everything I've just said could be wrong." That breaks the tension and we wind up shaking hands and hoisting a few.

The problem, it seems to me, is that if you take an absolutist position and refuse to be more objective then you'll never leave room for changing your mind. Why do we have to be entirely fixed in our beliefs? A wise man once said, "arguments would not last long if the fault weren't only on one side."

After LaPierre's speech, even die-hard NRA members were critical of it, saying that he had not truly addressed the problems of gun violence but rather pointed fingers of blame: Hollywood, the media, video games, etc. And the only solution he offered -- entirely unworkable as a one-size-fits-all simplistic remedy -- is to put more guns out there in the hope that it will provide blanket protection. Singling out schools for armed guards sounds reasonable on first hearing, but it does not take into account the myriad of "soft targets" in the public square. One could make a case that there ought to be an armed guard just about anywhere people interact in public, which would create a Police State of Orwellian proportions. Would we really feel any safer if EVERY adult American were armed?

John Lott Jr., an economist and gun-rights advocate whom I've read and respect, tries to advance the case that if there are more guns in society there is less crime. He backs it up with reams of statistics that appear to support his thesis. Perhaps he is right. But I can understand why some well-intentioned, honest and caring people are nervous about the sight of a firearm even when carried by a "responsible gun owner."

The argument that only "criminals" break the law while law-abiding citizens obey it is appealing. But consider that all it takes for one criminal act to turn a person from law-abiding to a criminal. Countless people with no criminal record who have been perfectly good citizens all their lives have been known all too often to commit crimes. Then they wear the "criminal" label forever.

I don't know what the answer is except that ever since Cain slew Abel, humans have been killing each other regardless of the weapon used. God handed down a commandment -- Thou Shalt Not Kill -- and for more than 5,000 years of recorded history, it has yet to be obeyed.

Merry Christmas to all, and peace on earth and goodwill toward men.