THCDDM4
11-05-15, 14:14
I had beers with a colleague of mine yesterday evening. He is an attorney. He is Pro 2A, kind of, sort of, I thought he really was- IN HIS MIND HE IS...
Let me preface this story by saying this gentleman is incredibly intelligent, well read and knowledgeable on SCOTUS rulings- he knows his shit. He owns AR's, high cap mags, Handguns, Rifles, Shotguns, etc; he has a CCW.
We sit down to some beers, talk about business and life- then we get to talking guns as we often do. And then he drops a bomb on me out of nowhere...
He tells me that congress should push for another assault weapons ban!!! What?!?!?!?!
I calmly ask why- he says that; "no one needs a death machine that's only purpose is for killing people swiftly. High capacity magazines allow people to mow down as many people as they like, there is no "sporting" or "Hunting" use for these types of weapons".
I reply that who is anyone to dictate the needs of anyone else? Does he need the Big ass truck that he owns? Does he need a cell phone? Does he need ALL the money he has accumulated? I also mention that 2A has never been about sporting or hunting.
He reply's: "My truck and my cell phone aren't going to kill 30+ people- they are not dangerous and the government isn't going to enslave you even if they wanted to you couldn't stop them- they have all the guns, bombs, tanks, etc".
To that I reply: Well, you could easily kill many people with your truck, by accident, by negligence, etc. And that our govt/military can''t even keep a bunch of cave men with 50 year old AK's under control- how would they keep the most well trained and well armed people in the world under control? He says the military and LEO's would- I say maybe some, but most would grab gear and be fighting on MY side- not .gov side.
He says that is BS- his truck has many uses not just killing. I tell him my AR has many uses not just for killing- I've shot thousands of rounds through tens of rifles and they have never once been used to kill anything at all.
I go through the list of why he is wrong, how his logic is flawed and how he is ignorant of many facts; I provide him with said facts.
I tell him how the last AW ban did nothing to curb crime, I ask him if he believes mass shootings are on the rise, he says "DEFINITELY"; I show him they are not and they are flat, he says it doesn't matter, I tell him that an AR is actually one of the best SD & HD weapons available, and in my first choice.
HE says there is nothing I could do with an AR that I couldn't do with a shotgun- to that I ask- well should we outlaw shotguns as well then?
He says- no they are for hunting and sporting- I say that's not what 2A is about- he says the founding fathers could never have fathomed a device such as an assault rifle that could kill so easily and they didn't intend for 2A to protect anything other than muskets- they couldn't even comprehend automatic weapons he says- I tell him that there were rifles capable of multiple shots at the time and they were aware of them.
We go back and forth over every aspect of this debate for a few hours and more than a few beers.
Then I get into the intent of the Constitution, and he says "Bearing arms" doesn't mean to carry them, it just means to have them- I almost spit beer at this one. Keep and Bear arms is quite clear and the "And" was used to separate them as individual rights. He says- nope, that's not what it means and 2A really legally only applies to us keeping guns in our homes- open carry and CC are unconstitutional- WHAT?!?!?!?!
He says CCW laws are only 10 years old- I fill him in that carrying in whatever fashion you liked was a right for hundreds of years except in very limited cases up until anti CCW laws were passed- he says- nope.
We go back and forth for a long time- I finally ask him why he feels so strongly about this. "I changed my mind when I had a daughter- mI'm afraid of some whacko going to her school and shooting the place up with an Assault rifle..."
So we discuss protecting schools- I comment on how teachers should be armed and trained and he says that would be even more dangerous and I am crazy for thinking that.
I ask why we guard our money with guns and our children with "Gun free zones signs" how often do we see mass shootings happen at banks and areas where there are armed guards- he says we guard money with guns because bad guys try to steal the money- I ask well didn't you just say mass shootings are on the rise and obviously you are afraid of one happening at your daughters school- so would it be correct to say bad guys go to schools to kill kids as well? Yeah, but arming teachers won't stop them- that will just cause negligent deaths. The police are the ones there to stop mass shootings- we need to take the tools aaway from shooters that make it so easy to kill so quickly.
I show him how the only way to stop someone with a gun who is killing people is to have someone shoot at that person and kill them- so why would we not have someone trained and ready to do just that- who is on scene all day and there is not wait for police response and multiple children to die from said wait- he says I am repeating talking points from Fox new and I watch it too much. I say no I am not- these are real opinions I hold- I don't even watch the damn news. It is a fact that active shooters are only stopped when rounds get sent back there way- so logically wouldn't it make sense to have someone ON SITE to be able to get rounds on target quickly before said shooter has a chance to kill so many? He still maintains that it would be mor dangerous and we would see more deaths from such policies than the Mass shooters cause...
We finish our conversation with a discussion on SCOTUS and it's rulings as of late. I wanted to get away from the gun talk for a moment ass it was getting a bit heated; we were both very respectful and calm in our debate- but both are passionate and you know how that goes when booze is involved. We went back and forth and I killed every argument he made- so I figured lets just leave it at that and maintain our friendship and business relationship..
As we walk out the door- he says- you made some really good points; I enjoyed this conversation and I have to admit I am swayed by it a bit. I still think we should ban AW's because there is no use for them other than killing- but I don't think it would stop anyone from hurting a lot of people if they were banned.
I told him nothing is going to stop people from hurting others except for individuals who have the mindset, tools and proximity to stop it by force.
It was disheartening to learn this man has abandoned logic for emotion and holds these anit-gun opinions- being pro 2A but wanting to ban items he himself owns.
It was somewhat hopeful to have him admit to some of his ignorance, but he is still not abandoning his emotion/opinion of getting rid of High-Caps and AW's.
All in all it was a win for me due to the fact I was debating a man who debates for a living and cleaned the floor with him so to speak. But it really got me fired up at the same time- that even incredibly intelligent, erudite logical people- a gun guy no less; can fall for the emotional BS and hold anti-gun opinions.
Had to talk about it as it has been nagging on me all day.
Let me preface this story by saying this gentleman is incredibly intelligent, well read and knowledgeable on SCOTUS rulings- he knows his shit. He owns AR's, high cap mags, Handguns, Rifles, Shotguns, etc; he has a CCW.
We sit down to some beers, talk about business and life- then we get to talking guns as we often do. And then he drops a bomb on me out of nowhere...
He tells me that congress should push for another assault weapons ban!!! What?!?!?!?!
I calmly ask why- he says that; "no one needs a death machine that's only purpose is for killing people swiftly. High capacity magazines allow people to mow down as many people as they like, there is no "sporting" or "Hunting" use for these types of weapons".
I reply that who is anyone to dictate the needs of anyone else? Does he need the Big ass truck that he owns? Does he need a cell phone? Does he need ALL the money he has accumulated? I also mention that 2A has never been about sporting or hunting.
He reply's: "My truck and my cell phone aren't going to kill 30+ people- they are not dangerous and the government isn't going to enslave you even if they wanted to you couldn't stop them- they have all the guns, bombs, tanks, etc".
To that I reply: Well, you could easily kill many people with your truck, by accident, by negligence, etc. And that our govt/military can''t even keep a bunch of cave men with 50 year old AK's under control- how would they keep the most well trained and well armed people in the world under control? He says the military and LEO's would- I say maybe some, but most would grab gear and be fighting on MY side- not .gov side.
He says that is BS- his truck has many uses not just killing. I tell him my AR has many uses not just for killing- I've shot thousands of rounds through tens of rifles and they have never once been used to kill anything at all.
I go through the list of why he is wrong, how his logic is flawed and how he is ignorant of many facts; I provide him with said facts.
I tell him how the last AW ban did nothing to curb crime, I ask him if he believes mass shootings are on the rise, he says "DEFINITELY"; I show him they are not and they are flat, he says it doesn't matter, I tell him that an AR is actually one of the best SD & HD weapons available, and in my first choice.
HE says there is nothing I could do with an AR that I couldn't do with a shotgun- to that I ask- well should we outlaw shotguns as well then?
He says- no they are for hunting and sporting- I say that's not what 2A is about- he says the founding fathers could never have fathomed a device such as an assault rifle that could kill so easily and they didn't intend for 2A to protect anything other than muskets- they couldn't even comprehend automatic weapons he says- I tell him that there were rifles capable of multiple shots at the time and they were aware of them.
We go back and forth over every aspect of this debate for a few hours and more than a few beers.
Then I get into the intent of the Constitution, and he says "Bearing arms" doesn't mean to carry them, it just means to have them- I almost spit beer at this one. Keep and Bear arms is quite clear and the "And" was used to separate them as individual rights. He says- nope, that's not what it means and 2A really legally only applies to us keeping guns in our homes- open carry and CC are unconstitutional- WHAT?!?!?!?!
He says CCW laws are only 10 years old- I fill him in that carrying in whatever fashion you liked was a right for hundreds of years except in very limited cases up until anti CCW laws were passed- he says- nope.
We go back and forth for a long time- I finally ask him why he feels so strongly about this. "I changed my mind when I had a daughter- mI'm afraid of some whacko going to her school and shooting the place up with an Assault rifle..."
So we discuss protecting schools- I comment on how teachers should be armed and trained and he says that would be even more dangerous and I am crazy for thinking that.
I ask why we guard our money with guns and our children with "Gun free zones signs" how often do we see mass shootings happen at banks and areas where there are armed guards- he says we guard money with guns because bad guys try to steal the money- I ask well didn't you just say mass shootings are on the rise and obviously you are afraid of one happening at your daughters school- so would it be correct to say bad guys go to schools to kill kids as well? Yeah, but arming teachers won't stop them- that will just cause negligent deaths. The police are the ones there to stop mass shootings- we need to take the tools aaway from shooters that make it so easy to kill so quickly.
I show him how the only way to stop someone with a gun who is killing people is to have someone shoot at that person and kill them- so why would we not have someone trained and ready to do just that- who is on scene all day and there is not wait for police response and multiple children to die from said wait- he says I am repeating talking points from Fox new and I watch it too much. I say no I am not- these are real opinions I hold- I don't even watch the damn news. It is a fact that active shooters are only stopped when rounds get sent back there way- so logically wouldn't it make sense to have someone ON SITE to be able to get rounds on target quickly before said shooter has a chance to kill so many? He still maintains that it would be mor dangerous and we would see more deaths from such policies than the Mass shooters cause...
We finish our conversation with a discussion on SCOTUS and it's rulings as of late. I wanted to get away from the gun talk for a moment ass it was getting a bit heated; we were both very respectful and calm in our debate- but both are passionate and you know how that goes when booze is involved. We went back and forth and I killed every argument he made- so I figured lets just leave it at that and maintain our friendship and business relationship..
As we walk out the door- he says- you made some really good points; I enjoyed this conversation and I have to admit I am swayed by it a bit. I still think we should ban AW's because there is no use for them other than killing- but I don't think it would stop anyone from hurting a lot of people if they were banned.
I told him nothing is going to stop people from hurting others except for individuals who have the mindset, tools and proximity to stop it by force.
It was disheartening to learn this man has abandoned logic for emotion and holds these anit-gun opinions- being pro 2A but wanting to ban items he himself owns.
It was somewhat hopeful to have him admit to some of his ignorance, but he is still not abandoning his emotion/opinion of getting rid of High-Caps and AW's.
All in all it was a win for me due to the fact I was debating a man who debates for a living and cleaned the floor with him so to speak. But it really got me fired up at the same time- that even incredibly intelligent, erudite logical people- a gun guy no less; can fall for the emotional BS and hold anti-gun opinions.
Had to talk about it as it has been nagging on me all day.