View Full Version : Mind Challange for Anti Gun types (Orlando related)
I wanted to follow up on a short comment i made in the Orlando thread with this thought experiment you can use on other forums. It's not intended for M4C members, it's intended for members to use as needed to counter the nonsense in a way anti types will "get." The trick here is, to make sure, no matter how tempted, to not mention firearms at all within in your posts. Some will obviously see what you're up to, but it wont help them in the least in terms of their response. Yes, some will deflect with "but computers are not designed to kill" and all that, but that's how it goes. The fact is, this puts them in a corner from which they can't escape nor win. I set it up as a poll, but you can use it in a debate in some thread, FB, etc. It's open source:
Computers are now the primary way pedophiles get access to their victims (1), yet I have not heard anyone trying to push for limiting access to computers to reduce the number of victims by pedophiles, even using the "If it saves just one child" angle.
Why? I assume it's because everyone knows it's the person behind the computer and that the vast majority of computer users don't use computers to harm children. I would think most would consider it illogical punishment to the vast majority of computer users (you) who have committed no crime with their computer and would consider it a serious impingement on their Right to Free Speech/1 Amend Rights, even though owning a computer itself is not protected under the Constitution.
How do you vote on the poll knowing the above?
If you chose #1, guess you support pedos out there and are a terrible person.
Poll Qs I used for above:
I will accept no limitation on my computer access even if it saved one child
I'd be willing to have my access limited if I thought it would help
I'd be willing to buy only government approved comps that strongly limited my access
I'll do anything to help even if it meant no net access for everyone but the government
Source via the FBI:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/may/predators_051711
Outlander Systems
06-14-16, 14:06
Sir, you are a Scholar, and a Gentleman.
I wanted to follow up on a short comment i made in the Orlando thread with this thought experiment you can use on other forums. It's not intended for M4C members, it's intended for members to use as needed to counter the nonsense in a way anti types will "get." The trick here is, to make sure, no matter how tempted, to not mention firearms at all within in your posts. Some will obviously see what you're up to, but it wont help them in the least in terms of their response. Yes, some will deflect with "but computers are not designed to kill" and all that, but that's how it goes. The fact is, this puts them in a corner from which they can't escape nor win. I set it up as a poll, but you can use it in a debate in some thread, FB, etc. It's open source:
Computers are now the primary way pedophiles get access to their victims (1), yet I have not heard anyone trying to push for limiting access to computers to reduce the number of victims by pedophiles, even using the "If it saves just one child" angle.
Why? I assume it's because everyone knows it's the person behind the computer and that the vast majority of computer users don't use computers to harm children. I would think most would consider it illogical punishment to the vast majority of computer users (you) who have committed no crime with their computer and would consider it a serious impingement on their Right to Free Speech/1 Amend Rights, even though owning a computer itself is not protected under the Constitution.
How do you vote on the poll knowing the above?
If you chose #1, guess you support pedos out there and are a terrible person.
Poll Qs I used for above:
I will accept no limitation on my computer access even if it saved one child
I'd be willing to have my access limited if I thought it would help
I'd be willing to buy only government approved comps that strongly limited my access
I'll do anything to help even if it meant no net access for everyone but the government
Source via the FBI:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/may/predators_051711
Last week a guy in Kalamazoo got mad and ran over 8 bicyclists, 5 of which died. I don't remember anyone asking to ban F150s
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
as I say parents kill 11 kids each day by giving teens keys and a cell phone and no outcry ?
3 kids die from drowning
look at medical malpractice ?
you cant reason with the left and anti gun people they are totally blind to anything and everything you would say
even when you say look at paris ? they will still argue for a ban
sadly the left is all in for killing babies and sadly many on the left will take the pedo side over you stating that is the way they are !!!! they are born that way
IMHO folks like that I just dont bother even dealing with anymore not worth my time :)
"But...but...we NEED computers. How else will we FACEBOOK, maaaan"
Get a telegraph and learn morse code. I'm sure the Minions can go without being Macroed and Sailor Moon would enjoy the break from being ogled, maaaaan.
Meanwhile I'm off with hatchet, musket, and tricorn hat. I bid thee good day, sir!
So I put that OP post alone on a big site where fights of all kinds are taking place over gun bans, etc, and the poll had many voting #1 by a wide margin as expected. I was about to drop the hammer on the thread to point out there was no difference in the gun debate, and it was removed by mods after a complaint. Yup, intellectual honestly strikes again....
Good work!
This will appeal to those who haven't thought much about the issue but are whipped up to be compassionate through bans.
But it won't touch the postmodern anti's. They only use their arguments to appeal to those who value reason. Postmodern thought (aka Obama and Co and the sea of Millennials) do not value even their own reason as an authority. It's all passion and power at whatever cost.
Good work!
This will appeal to those who haven't thought much about the issue but are whipped up to be compassionate through bans.
But it won't touch the postmodern anti's. They only use their arguments to appeal to those who value reason. Postmodern thought (aka Obama and Co and the sea of Millennials) do not value even their own reason as an authority. It's all passion and power at whatever cost.
Hard core zealots are beyond hope nor reason regardless of the topic, much less the key emotional hot topics, but such a under the radar thought experiment could save a few who, as you say, just whipped up about the topic minus any facts.
To reiterate (and slightly modify) my post from the previous thread:
The common counter-argument frames it as a false-equivalence fallacy, due to the difference in perceived benefit/detriment ratio.
Computers and the Internet provide a huge amount of positives for society, from education to news to free speech to commerce to entertainment. The downside being things like hacking, access to knowledge of explosives, and back on topic, the use by pedophiles.
Firearms are perceived as having very little societal benefits; you can hunt with bows or blackpowder and it's only a sport, if hunting is necessary for survival a bolt action will still work well, pest control can be done with a bolt action or shotgun, plinking and target shooting are trivial societal benefits, you're "more likely to hurt yourself or your family if you have a firearm in the house than you are to ever need it to stop a criminal", you're "likely going to shoot the wrong person or be shot by accident if stopping an active shooter with a CCW", and "you can't fight and win against the US Military with a rifle." On the other hand, easy access to firearms leads to more spur-of-the-moment suicides, more accidental deaths (esp in children), more lethal public violence (larger ratio of killed vs injured when firearms are involved vs knives, for example), more killed in gang-related violence (both intentional and collateral), and more passion killings (e.g. catching your wife cheating).
Thus, in many people's minds, the benefit:cost ratio of computers and internet is very high while the benefit:cost of firearms is very low.
Not saying I buy their arguments, but it's worth knowing the common counter-argument. The same counter-arguments are used when comparing guns with cars.
perception and lack of knowledge is the problem our pres even said the glock had lots of clips in it ?
when people do not understand they fear it most often
no idea when our FL stud boy euro took his lefty girls out shooting the long term effect it had on them ? maybe he can see this and post ? but IMHO that kinda stuff if done well like it sounds it was can only help
my wife and I were chatting what would she have been like if not with me ? Canada girl and all :)
most of her friends she had who are there are radical lefty types here more like most of us
people can change but it takes a long time and not only education but I think experience is the biggest factor
the computer analogy is one more small tool amongst all the others we can use :)
sadly when dealing with lefty folks again they are so so so so so closed minded to anything other than the marching orders they get from others they rarely think on there own so its a Huge uphill battle and while a few muslims see the light and get out sadly more seem to go in and get lost
no answers and doubt things will change anytime soon sadly
To reiterate (and slightly modify) my post from the previous thread:
The common counter-argument frames it as a false-equivalence fallacy, due to the difference in perceived benefit/detriment ratio.
Computers and the Internet provide a huge amount of positives for society, from education to news to free speech to commerce to entertainment. The downside being things like hacking, access to knowledge of explosives, and back on topic, the use by pedophiles.
Firearms are perceived as having very little societal benefits; you can hunt with bows or blackpowder and it's only a sport, if hunting is necessary for survival a bolt action will still work well, pest control can be done with a bolt action or shotgun, plinking and target shooting are trivial societal benefits, you're "more likely to hurt yourself or your family if you have a firearm in the house than you are to ever need it to stop a criminal", you're "likely going to shoot the wrong person or be shot by accident if stopping an active shooter with a CCW", and "you can't fight and win against the US Military with a rifle." On the other hand, easy access to firearms leads to more spur-of-the-moment suicides, more accidental deaths (esp in children), more lethal public violence (larger ratio of killed vs injured when firearms are involved vs knives, for example), more killed in gang-related violence (both intentional and collateral), and more passion killings (e.g. catching your wife cheating).
Thus, in many people's minds, the benefit:cost ratio of computers and internet is very high while the benefit:cost of firearms is very low.
Not saying I buy their arguments, but it's worth knowing the common counter-argument. The same counter-arguments are used when comparing guns with cars.
Exactly what I was going to say but you beat me to it. I recently had an argument with a girl that wants a handgun but can't fathom why someone would own an "assault rifle". I tried to counter using this method, but using alcohol instead of computers. There is no way you can win these battles because in their minds AR's bring no use or benefit to their lives. They see them as unnecessary and a weapon of death and destruction. Good luck changing that viewpoint, I've even shot my AR with the girl.
They fail to see that the 2nd is more than being about self protection against intruders or rapists. That can't comprehend that if you give government the right to withhold ownership of black guns because they are "bad", then they ultimately could do the same in all realms of one's life. Limit fast food and eating out to once a week due to the obesity epidemic or limit alcohol consumption to two drinks a day to fight America's alcohol problem.
When she asked me why I need an AR I responded with "because thankfully we live in America, a place that I am able to say, do, and own things without having to prove their need to other people". Why must I have to justify ownership for something when I committed no crime? I'm sorry guys, but no matter what kind of argument or reasoning you have to combat this ignorance you can not, and will not, win.
They feel AR's are evil because they have no use for one. And if they don't need one neither do we. Their computers are their lifeblood, and though the argument makes sense to us it will never for them.
Exactly what I was going to say but you beat me to it. I recently had an argument with a girl that wants a handgun but can't fathom why someone would own an "assault rifle". I tried to counter using this method, but using alcohol instead of computers. There is no way you can win these battles because in their minds AR's bring no use or benefit to their lives. They see them as unnecessary and a weapon of death and destruction. Good luck changing that viewpoint, I've even shot my AR with the girl.
They fail to see that the 2nd is more than being about self protection against intruders or rapists. That can't comprehend that if you give government the right to withhold ownership of black guns because they are "bad", then they ultimately could do the same in all realms of one's life. Limit fast food and eating out to once a week due to the obesity epidemic or limit alcohol consumption to two drinks a day to fight America's alcohol problem.
When she asked me why I need an AR I responded with "because thankfully we live in America, a place that I am able to say, do, and own things without having to prove their need to other people". Why must I have to justify ownership for something when I committed no crime? I'm sorry guys, but no matter what kind of argument or reasoning you have to combat this ignorance you can not, and will not, win.
They feel AR's are evil because they have no use for one. And if they don't need one neither do we. Their computers are their lifeblood, and though the argument makes sense to us it will never for them.
I feel like alcohol is the best comparison and I think you were on the right track.
Both are primarily used for leisure and both lead to many deaths or injuries. Yes, alcohol has some regulations - you can't have any before you're 21 and you can't drink and drive. Firearms often come with an 18 or 21 yr old limit as well. But you also need a background check for firearms.
But at least firearms have a self-defense and defense of the homeland usage. Alcohol is only for fun and for messing up your or someone else's life. Yet alcohol is allowed.
"Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths ... each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010" http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
"In 2013, firearms were used in ... 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000), 21,175 by suicide with a firearm, 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent" for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Inkslinger
06-14-16, 18:14
I like to use alcohol as an example when I engage people in the gun topic. CDC estimates that there 88,000 alcohol related deaths a year. Where is their outrage toward the alcohol industry? When you remove the number of suicides from the inflated average death toll you see you're 8 times more likely to die because of alcohol. Crickets...
I feel like alcohol is the best comparison and I think you were on the right track.
Both are primarily used for leisure and both lead to many deaths or injuries. Yes, alcohol has some regulations - you can't have any before you're 21 and you can't drink and drive. Firearms often come with an 18 or 21 yr old limit as well. But you also need a background check for firearms.
But at least firearms have a self-defense and defense of the homeland usage. Alcohol is only for fun and for messing up your or someone else's life. Yet alcohol is allowed.
"Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths ... each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010" http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
I don't see people making a mental leap that's seem parallel comparison between guns and booze personally. I think a tool they use every day, that is used by small % of users of that same tool to do what's considered the worst possible thing you can do in our society, is a parallel that could lead to that "ah ha" moment for some. Especially if framed in the way I did where you don't talk about firearms until it's too late an they have committed to their answer. Two, you have a topic left leaner types love - Free Speech/1 Amend - tied to one Const. Right they don't "get." If someone is ever going to have their "ah ha" moment from a basic thought experiment on this topic, I think my example about as good as it will get.
I don't see people making a mental leap that's seem parallel comparison between guns and booze personally. I think a tool they use every day, that is used by small % of users of that same tool to do what's considered the worst possible thing you can do in our society, is a parallel that could lead to that "ah ha" moment for some. Especially if framed in the way I did where you don't talk about firearms until it's too late an they have committed to their answer. Two, you have a topic left leaner types love - Free Speech/1 Amend - tied to one Const. Right they don't "get." If someone is ever going to have their "ah ha" moment from a basic thought experiment on this topic, I think my example about as good as it will get.
But even with that or the car argument, there's still the cost/benefit analysis they can run and come to the completely logical conclusion that there is a massive benefit for computers with the small cost of misuse. Whereas guns cause ~30,000 deaths in the US every year and provide very little benefit in their eyes.
Plus, they don't see the 2nd as on the same level as the 1st. Either they think it should be amended away (framers and forefathers got firearms wrong like they got slavery wrong) or they think it only applies to actual formal militias and that SCOTUS got it wrong (like HRC, and like many people here think SCOTUS got different rulings wrong) or it only applies to guns that "sportsmen" use ("sure it protects guns, but not every gun, so you can have your bolt actions and double barrel or over under shotguns, but nothing semi-automatic").
Actually in all seriousness, people ARE gunning for the first amendment.
Hence Trigglypuff
When people refuse to blame a hateful ideology, and Islam is just as bad as Christian Identity in this regard although Christian Identity doesn't even come close to the body count, but instead blame inanimate objects there is no logical debate possible.
A better analogy would be asking people if it's perfectly acceptable to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan so long as they didn't have a gun. Then there is the problem of pressure cookers.
A better analogy would be asking people if it's perfectly acceptable to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan so long as they didn't have a gun.
For many people that's a two part answer. The government shouldn't stop you from being a member of the KKK, just like it doesn't stop you from being a gang member. But morally you'd tell people not to join.
Outlander Systems
06-14-16, 18:38
That is the mature approach. Unfortunately, we are fundamentally lacking in the maturity department as of late.
*see also: "Safe Space"
For many people that's a two part answer. The government shouldn't stop you from being a member of the KKK, just like it doesn't stop you from being a gang member. But morally you'd tell people not to join.
I commend your post Will, and love it. However...
We should not be framing arguments this way. We should be strictly pointing out he virtue of freedom and liberty and taking all the schuck and jive head on. Fight emotion with a mix of logic, fact and emotion so you can speak in their language whilst still debating with logic and facts on your side. Turn the emotional BS against them.
They say: you "don't need" guns and the 2A is only for muskets? Well okay, you say: you "don't need" your computer, hell you can write a letter, and we all know that the founders could never have fathomed an electronic device such as the computer- you can only use quill and ink and hemp paper for 1A.
"If it can save just one child we should ban all guns" you say: "Well, owning guns has saved children's lives and I'll be damned if I'll let just one child die we should free all guns"
I've been employing this tactic of adding an emotional spice to my factual/logical debates/arguments lately and it has caught more than a few off guard and turning their logical fallacy/emotion against them usually breaks them away from their BS complacency and endless regurgitation of group think for just a moment and we can have a real discussion for a few moments. Hasn't changed anyone's mind completely yet, but I am making progress with a few people.
Some will never "get it". And that's fine, we just have to double down on those that might one day "get it" and work on educating them to see the truth and what's right- without being in their faces, forceful, over passionate or preachy.
I will use this line of thought next time it makes sense to do so and see how it works. But I feel we really need to have a renaissance of what freedom actually is, a lot of people just plain don't understand it anymore as it has been dismantled slowly over time and subverted.
ETA: We REALLY need to abandon the false concept of "safety". It really doesn't exist and we should beat everyone over the head with words who champions safety over anything, especially freedom and rights. People preach safety, but there is no such thing at all. There is only preparedness and ones ability to defend themselves from danger/evil. Taking away the tools that necessitate this preparation and defense is foolish and evil in and of itself. Those who would give up this ability willingly are straight up slaves, assholes and morons.
For many people that's a two part answer. The government shouldn't stop you from being a member of the KKK, just like it doesn't stop you from being a gang member. But morally you'd tell people not to join.
I guess where I was going is does taking guns away from a KKK member make them perfectly safe? Seems to me they killed more people with bombs and gasoline than they ever did with guns.
And morally you'd have nothing to do with people who subscribe to a hateful ideology.
That is the mature approach. Unfortunately, we are fundamentally lacking in the maturity department as of late.
*see also: "Safe Space"
I don't get that safe space crap. Even OBAMA doesn't get it.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/11/president-obama-calls-out-safe-space-culture-weakly/
"So don’t try to shut folks out, don’t try to shut them down, no matter how much you might disagree with them. There’s been a trend around the country of trying to get colleges to disinvite speakers with a different point of view, or disrupt a politician’s rally. Don’t do that — no matter how ridiculous or offensive you might find the things that come out of their mouths.
...
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t challenge them. Have the confidence to challenge them, the confidence in the rightness of your position. There will be times when you shouldn’t compromise your core values, your integrity, and you will have the responsibility to speak up in the face of injustice. But listen. Engage. If the other side has a point, learn from them. If they’re wrong, rebut them. Teach them. Beat them on the battlefield of ideas. And you might as well start practicing now, because one thing I can guarantee you — you will have to deal with ignorance, hatred, racism, foolishness, trifling folks. (Laughter.) I promise you, you will have to deal with all that at every stage of your life. That may not seem fair, but life has never been completely fair. Nobody promised you a crystal stair. And if you want to make life fair, then you’ve got to start with the world as it is."
Outlander Systems
06-14-16, 18:49
It's insanity. Pure, insanity. I'd also argue it's a direct result of participation medals and helicopter parenting.
Will's strategy will only work with those who still have some mental faculties left. Once someone crosses over into touchy-freely-safe-space-Trigglypuff-Town, it's a lost cause.
I don't get that safe space crap. Even OBAMA doesn't get it.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/11/president-obama-calls-out-safe-space-culture-weakly/
"So don’t try to shut folks out, don’t try to shut them down, no matter how much you might disagree with them. There’s been a trend around the country of trying to get colleges to disinvite speakers with a different point of view, or disrupt a politician’s rally. Don’t do that — no matter how ridiculous or offensive you might find the things that come out of their mouths.
...
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t challenge them. Have the confidence to challenge them, the confidence in the rightness of your position. There will be times when you shouldn’t compromise your core values, your integrity, and you will have the responsibility to speak up in the face of injustice. But listen. Engage. If the other side has a point, learn from them. If they’re wrong, rebut them. Teach them. Beat them on the battlefield of ideas. And you might as well start practicing now, because one thing I can guarantee you — you will have to deal with ignorance, hatred, racism, foolishness, trifling folks. (Laughter.) I promise you, you will have to deal with all that at every stage of your life. That may not seem fair, but life has never been completely fair. Nobody promised you a crystal stair. And if you want to make life fair, then you’ve got to start with the world as it is."
I guess where I was going is does taking guns away from a KKK member make them perfectly safe? Seems to me they killed more people with bombs and gasoline than they ever did with guns.
And morally you'd have nothing to do with people who subscribe to a hateful ideology.
Oh I see, I took that in the wrong direction, my bad.
So you're asking if taking guns away from a KKK member won't stop him from bombing or burning minorities, should you not take away guns at all?
I got to be honest guys, rationale logic just doesn't work with these folks.
http://drudgetoday.com/v2/r?n=1&s=2&c=1&pn=Anonymous&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rollingstone.com%2Fpolitics%2Fnews%2Fwhy-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-right-bear-arms-20160613
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Outlander Systems
06-14-16, 19:00
What's North Korea's stance on private ownership of armaments?
That article is patently offensive to me.
However, I'd gladly die to make sure stupid jackasses like him get to keep their 1A Rights.
I got to be honest guys, rationale logic just doesn't work with these folks.
http://drudgetoday.com/v2/r?n=1&s=2&c=1&pn=Anonymous&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rollingstone.com%2Fpolitics%2Fnews%2Fwhy-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-right-bear-arms-20160613
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
someone posted a clip from the view
hahahah that fat cow who has the raspy voce baher or whatever her name is
said the shooter had no ties at all to isis but trump does cause he is working with them to destroy america and he should be brought up on treason
that is the problem with the left they are mentally ill ? there is no way you will ever get any truth into them sadly
Oh I see, I took that in the wrong direction, my bad.
So you're asking if taking guns away from a KKK member won't stop him from bombing or burning minorities, should you not take away guns at all?
Well we are back at "You are allowed to be KKK, Muslim or member of the Christian Identity Church." But everyone should recognize you subscribe to a hateful ideology that is generally devoted to the destruction of non members.
But sadly we have to wait until they commit a criminal act before taking action because of first amendment freedoms to be a complete POS.
But taking guns away from them doesn't make them safe. It doesn't mean that people who have expressed violent ideas are now no longer dangerous. If we take guns away from everyone, we will simply have stabbing attacks and machete attacks and things like that.
And god help us if we ever end up with an educated person who knows how to make ANFO. OKC bombing got 168 dead and over 600 injured. Personally I'd have preferred McVeigh to have walked in and just start shooting, at least all the kids across the street would be alive.
I got to be honest guys, rationale logic just doesn't work with these folks.
http://drudgetoday.com/v2/r?n=1&s=2&c=1&pn=Anonymous&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rollingstone.com%2Fpolitics%2Fnews%2Fwhy-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-right-bear-arms-20160613
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Screw that asshole. And for the record, I'd gladly go back to a system where Mitt Romney would be Obama's Vice President and Carter would be Reagan's.
militarymoron
06-14-16, 21:30
I've been dealing with some anti-gun sentiment ever since the Orlando incident. The way I get some folks to think when they say 'we need to ban assault rifles and guns' etc; is to say 'so you also agree we shouldn't allow muslims into the U.S. and deport all muslims?'. They come back with the argument 'of course not - only the radical jihadist terrorist ones. most muslims aren't an issue at all'. to which i reply 'just like the majority of gun owners. when you jump on guns when something like this happens, and say that all guns must be banned, you're persecuting regular gun owners just like those who blame regular muslims for the actions of the radical minority.'
I ask 'do the majority of gun owners present a problem?' 'No, not really'. 'Do the majority of muslims present a problem?' 'No, of course not'. 'Then it's just the muslims with guns that kill people that are the problem. Let's then keep suggestions to ideas that help keep guns out of the hands of radical muslims or protect people from them.' I tell people that when they go around advocating a ban on guns, it makes me as a regular gun owner feel like a 'normal' muslim feels when something like this happens: looked at with suspicion and fear, and lumped together with a small group of trouble makers.
BrigandTwoFour
06-14-16, 22:55
There are two very good blog posts I like to refer to when these situations happen:
Popehat's "Talking Productively About Guns" (https://popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-about-guns/)
and The Polemicist's "The Rifle on the Wall: A Leftist's Argument for Gun Rights" (http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html)
There are two distinct groups I've observed on the anti side. One group believes what they do more out of ignorance, and they can be educated or even turned to our side. The other group has a fundamentally different view of rights, society, and rule of law than we do.
We, as the supporters of the 2A, view the right as a fundamental part of who we are as free citizens. We look back across history and know that it has almost never worked out to allow the government (or rulers) to maintain a monopoly on the use of force. We accept that there will be some misuse of the right because we believe in our core that the societal benefit of allowing the common citizen the ability to defend their lives and liberty with violence outweighs the times that the right is misused. We believe that the surest method to maintaining liberty is to put it in the hands of the citizen and trust them to wield that power for the benefit of society. We believe that any restriction must be passed through that filter and present the as minimal an impedance to the right as possible.
In contrast, the latter group that I mentioned holds no such view. They fundamentally believe that it is the role of government, and only the government, to provide protection for society. This group, which follows a very European line of thinking, believes that the state should have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, because that is the civilized thing to do in a society where the violence apparatus "answers" to the "people." This group views private ownership of firearms as a privilege, and one that should be weighed against potential risks. They would be more than happy to see the right evaporate, because they simply don't believe in it at all.
This second group will never change their mind in a debate over semantics and technicalities. They hold diametrically opposed world views from us. No analogy of computers, alcohol, cars, porn, or whatever will work on them because they hold a fundamentally different view on the role of violence in society. I honestly don't know how to reach this group, so the best I can do is argue with them publicly and let them "show their crazy" while I maintain composure and sway the fence-sitters and spectators to our side.
I've been dealing with some anti-gun sentiment ever since the Orlando incident. The way I get some folks to think when they say 'we need to ban assault rifles and guns' etc; is to say 'so you also agree we shouldn't allow muslims into the U.S. and deport all muslims?'. They come back with the argument 'of course not - only the radical jihadist terrorist ones. most muslims aren't an issue at all'. to which i reply 'just like the majority of gun owners. when you jump on guns when something like this happens, and say that all guns must be banned, you're persecuting regular gun owners just like those who blame regular muslims for the actions of the radical minority.'
I ask 'do the majority of gun owners present a problem?' 'No, not really'. 'Do the majority of muslims present a problem?' 'No, of course not'. 'Then it's just the muslims with guns that kill people that are the problem. Let's then keep suggestions to ideas that help keep guns out of the hands of radical muslims or protect people from them.' I tell people that when they go around advocating a ban on guns, it makes me as a regular gun owner feel like a 'normal' muslim feels when something like this happens: looked at with suspicion and fear, and lumped together with a small group of trouble makers.
It's a waste of time. It's simply something that "they" are willing to sacrifice. They don't care about guns, so they don't care about gun owners or gun rights. The same people are often willing to ban christianity because they are not religious, but they don't feel the same way about islam because they don't want to be viewed as racist or bigoted.
It's socially acceptable to reject guns and any rights associated with them. It's socially acceptable to reject christianity and any rights associated with that belief. But for some bizarre reason islam is a protected belief and their rights are important.
There are actually people who will blame the cartoonist for offending muslims to violence. There are actually people who will blame the film maker for offending muslims to violence. There are actually people who will blame the author for offending muslims to violence. There are actually people who will blame anyone who destroys a koran for offending muslims to violence. There are actually people who will blame the christians in foreign lands for offending muslims to violence.
militarymoron
06-15-16, 07:53
It's a waste of time.
It might be. What i say may not change their minds but i'm going to say it anyway. Once in a while, it reaches more reasonable ears. The rest of the people you mentioned are just...unreachable.
I commend your post Will, and love it. However...
We should not be framing arguments this way. We should be strictly pointing out he virtue of freedom and liberty and taking all the schuck and jive head on. Fight emotion with a mix of logic, fact and emotion so you can speak in their language whilst still debating with logic and facts on your side. Turn the emotional BS against them.
They say: you "don't need" guns and the 2A is only for muskets? Well okay, you say: you "don't need" your computer, hell you can write a letter, and we all know that the founders could never have fathomed an electronic device such as the computer- you can only use quill and ink and hemp paper for 1A.
"If it can save just one child we should ban all guns" you say: "Well, owning guns has saved children's lives and I'll be damned if I'll let just one child die we should free all guns"
I've been employing this tactic of adding an emotional spice to my factual/logical debates/arguments lately and it has caught more than a few off guard and turning their logical fallacy/emotion against them usually breaks them away from their BS complacency and endless regurgitation of group think for just a moment and we can have a real discussion for a few moments. Hasn't changed anyone's mind completely yet, but I am making progress with a few people.
Some will never "get it". And that's fine, we just have to double down on those that might one day "get it" and work on educating them to see the truth and what's right- without being in their faces, forceful, over passionate or preachy.
I will use this line of thought next time it makes sense to do so and see how it works. But I feel we really need to have a renaissance of what freedom actually is, a lot of people just plain don't understand it anymore as it has been dismantled slowly over time and subverted.
ETA: We REALLY need to abandon the false concept of "safety". It really doesn't exist and we should beat everyone over the head with words who champions safety over anything, especially freedom and rights. People preach safety, but there is no such thing at all. There is only preparedness and ones ability to defend themselves from danger/evil. Taking away the tools that necessitate this preparation and defense is foolish and evil in and of itself. Those who would give up this ability willingly are straight up slaves, assholes and morons.
For most those are general concepts they don't understand, and if you attempt to go from big picture conceptual topics to specific tools, it will not go well. Some times, taking them through simple step wise mental exercise, then building on that, is the only way you get passed the layers. Two, you have to target your approach to your audience, so my thought experiment will not be applicable to everyone, but for those working from a very base level, that type of mental progression can work to arrive at a point they have an "ah ha" moment, then you can build on that with the facts larger than the simple route to the logic center of their brain. I have been teaching people nutrition for example for 3 decades now, and I have tried and tested so many methods to get through to them to get them to the next level, I have found the above very effect with the right population to help them make that leap to more detailed discussions.
Another rule of using this method is, you can't use emotionally charged topics, unless it's one you know they will agree with (pedophiles are bad), but if you combine what you think is a "gatchya" topic that invokes an emotional response, you're already lost. For example "Orlando does not represent all Muslim just as the gun used does not represent all gun owners."
Totally true, but it invokes a strong emotion they already have a bias for (guns) which blocks access to critical thinking and boom, no learning is had. Hence, you're right, but failed in your mission to help them understand.
Even if you start out being technically wrong, but it gets you access to their critical thinking faculties, which then allows you to take them to the next step, it's worth it.
For example, during a lecture I like to say "There's no such thing as an essential carbohydrate"
That statement often leads to a breakthrough "ah ha" moment that now gives me access to their critical thinking abilities as their mind has been opened by that very simple - yet essentially meaningless - statement.
I got to be honest guys, rationale logic just doesn't work with these folks.
Some times it does, but you have to be sneaky about it, access it from the back door where the defenses are low, then open that crack you create to an open door. Much of the time, it's a waste of effort. But, if there's anything I have experience with, it's finding new and productive ways to frame a thing to get passed piles of dogma, bad science, bias, and stupid. It's been a major aspect of my "job" for 3 decades or so. If you think guns are a quagmire of bias, emotions, lack O logic, and stupid, the health/nutrition topic trumps it by miles.
Some of you may not be old enough remember, and some are, but may have forgotten.
The big push for gun control a few decades ago was focus on handguns. The logic was, handguns were the problem. They were responsible for most of the gun deaths, and were easy to conceal and were less expensive. "No one wants to ban your rifles" was the angle. There were entire orgs jus dedicated to "common sense" laws to ban handguns. Rifles were not the "problem" according to them at the time.
Handgun Control, Inc. Founded 1974 by Mark Borinsky as the National Council to Control Handguns, the most obvious example.
They failed obviously. In following decades with high profile mass shootings happening, some using long guns, the focus has shifted to banning "assault" weapons because they are more lethal and became a semi popular tool with spree shooters and domestic terrorists and "no one needs an AR 15 military assault weapon to hunt" angle created and AWB that followed, and also failed to have any impact on crime.
It's interesting to watch the progression between only wanting to take your handguns to only wanting to take your "assault rifles"
When someone decides to take a hunting rifle and kills a bunch of people at distance, and if that becomes a trend with the ilk of those trying to get attention for one reason o another, a focus to ban "high powered" rifles would be the focus of course, once the handguns and semi auto rifles banned and there's no impact on crime (1,2)
1 = Crime would likely go up as more law abiding unable to defend themselves
2 = Obvious Const. issues ignored obviously.
Outlander Systems
06-15-16, 08:36
Will, you've brought up an excellent point.
Keep in mind that the single most heinous murder in the last century, John Kennedy, was committed with what would be considered a hunting rifle.
The socialists/tyrants will never stop.
Expect bolt actions to be considered, "Sniper Rifles", and a ban on "high-powered sniper scopes".
When someone decides to take a hunting rifle and kills a bunch of people at distance, and if that becomes a trend with the ilk of those trying to get attention for one reason o another, a focus to ban "high powered" rifles would be the focus of course, once the handguns and semi auto rifles banned and there's no impact on crime (1,2)
Will, you've brought up an excellent point.
Keep in mind that the single most heinous murder in the last century, John Kennedy, was committed with what would be considered a hunting rifle.
The socialists/tyrants will never stop.
Expect bolt actions to be considered, "Sniper Rifles", and a ban on "high-powered sniper scopes".
Wait, you think LHO made that shot? :jester:
But seriously, any example they can come up with, is easy to counter with inconvenient facts you and I point out.
These reversals are very common for the left. No matter what the latest hysteria is, it is important to remember that the solution offered by the left has nothing to do with the hysteria du jour, it is merely a means to advance the agenda. We went from global cooling to global warming to climate change. The gun control of the Clinton era re FFLs was ewe had too many, and and we had to push so there were a lot more...now have to too many people selling guns w/o an FFL, and that is the problem. It is only about current hot buttons, reality has nothing to do with it. Heck, even a few years ago both Obama and Hillary were opposed to gay marriage, yet we had the WH lit up in rainbows with the SCOTUS ruling.
BangBang77
06-15-16, 09:28
Wait, you think LHO made that shot? :jester:
But seriously, any example they can come up with, is easy to counter with inconvenient facts you and I point out.
No, he didn't.
Lon Scott made that shot. Under Hugh Meechum's guidance and direction...
No, he didn't.
Lon Scott made that shot. Under Hugh Meechum's guidance and direction...
Everyone should read that book. I reviewed it here a while back.
Crow Hunter
06-15-16, 09:45
Will, you've brought up an excellent point.
Keep in mind that the single most heinous murder in the last century, John Kennedy, was committed with what would be considered a hunting rifle.
The socialists/tyrants will never stop.
Expect bolt actions to be considered, "Sniper Rifles", and a ban on "high-powered sniper scopes".
They already started down that route on that towards the end of the original '94 ban and the "intermediate sniper rifle" ban push.
Just search for VPC and sniper rifle. I figured that shotguns were going to be next on the list before they got stymied by the '94 ban expiring.
When someone decides to take a hunting rifle and kills a bunch of people at distance,
Already happened. 1966 In Taxes. Charles Wittman at the University of Texas. 17 killed 32 injured. Some were killed by his M1 carbine before he got into the observation deck. The rest were shot from up to 1500 feet away with a Remington 700 6mm rifle
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
The problem with equating the "all muslims are terrorists" to "all guns are bad" is that the first is about regulating people, the second about objects. They're not equivalent - it's not like they're advocating imprisoning or deporting all gun owners.
Another thing I've said recently is that "I get that you're scared. You want to feel safe and protect your family and you feel like getting rid of all guns will do that. I also feel scared, and I want to feel safe and protect my family. That's why I own a gun, to take my safety into my own hands... and because it took police three hours to stop the Orlando/Pulse shooter."
The problem with equating the "all muslims are terrorists" to "all guns are bad" is that the first is about regulating people, the second about objects. They're not equivalent - it's not like they're advocating imprisoning or deporting all gun owners.
This distinction is a leftist one that has been smuggled into public acceptance. And that's why they win the public discussion with the false premise.
A Muslim is a human with a set of beliefs and practices. Those beliefs and practices are not part of his human identity. We know this because he/she can convert and they are still humans.
A gun owner is a human with a set of beliefs and practices. Those beliefs and practices are not part of his human identity. Again, they can convert and remain human.
Enter natural rights: humans, to live freely, engage in beliefs and practices that advance that freedom and retrains concentration of power. It is a right because freedom is a natural end to humankind.
Muslims and gun owners and everyone else have these rights in common in the same way. We would do better in our public rhetoric to speak about the fundamental similarities.
Since we can't regulate beliefs, for they are internal (true if gun owners as well as Muslims) we can regulate the practice with force. To ban guns is like banning mosques. To ban certain guns is like banning certain prayers. To ban talk about guns is like banning the Quran.
As long as we think beliefs and practices are identical to being human, we have lost the foundation of the larger issue already.
I've been dealing with some anti-gun sentiment ever since the Orlando incident. The way I get some folks to think when they say 'we need to ban assault rifles and guns' etc; is to say 'so you also agree we shouldn't allow muslims into the U.S. and deport all muslims?'. They come back with the argument 'of course not - only the radical jihadist terrorist ones. most muslims aren't an issue at all'. to which i reply 'just like the majority of gun owners. when you jump on guns when something like this happens, and say that all guns must be banned, you're persecuting regular gun owners just like those who blame regular muslims for the actions of the radical minority.'
I ask 'do the majority of gun owners present a problem?' 'No, not really'. 'Do the majority of muslims present a problem?' 'No, of course not'. 'Then it's just the muslims with guns that kill people that are the problem. Let's then keep suggestions to ideas that help keep guns out of the hands of radical muslims or protect people from them.' I tell people that when they go around advocating a ban on guns, it makes me as a regular gun owner feel like a 'normal' muslim feels when something like this happens: looked at with suspicion and fear, and lumped together with a small group of trouble makers.
Whoa. This is good. Very good. I'm assuming you posted this so that others can learn from it and use it? I'm stealing this tactic and using it at the first opportunity. You are hereby notified.
Thanks.
Already happened. 1966 In Taxes. Charles Wittman at the University of Texas. 17 killed 32 injured. Some were killed by his M1 carbine before he got into the observation deck. The rest were shot from up to 1500 feet away with a Remington 700 6mm rifle
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
I'm well aware of the event. It's considered more or less the first event of it's kind and all but forgotten. A decent rifle in the hands of someone with the skills to use it, would make prior events look minor in comparison. It takes little skill to stand in a crowded club and do the fish in a barrel thing.
Well, even my own sister was incapable of a rational conversation today. She's left leaning for sure, but highly intelligent and has gone to the range a few times with me and "gets" why people might want to have a firearm for SD/HD, but it all went down hill today. She also just moved to FL and not far from shooters local, so added layer of charged emotions.
After chat about the event and how terrible it is....
"They shouldn't have access to automatic military style assault weapons"
"It was not an assault rifle or automatic"
"Well, it fires high powered bullets"
"Much less powerful than what comes out of most hunting rifles. Should we ban those?"
"Well no, those are for hunting and don't shoot as fast as the assault rifles he had"
"It's not an assault rifle and you ever hear of reloading? He reloaded several times"
It just went down hill from there, and before I completely lost my cool with an otherwise intelligent well meaning person, went the 'agree to disagree' route 'till emotions cool down and I can start over. Ugh...
Spurholder
06-15-16, 12:51
No, he didn't.
Lon Scott made that shot. Under Hugh Meechum's guidance and direction...
Love those Bob the Nailer books.
It just went down hill from there...
Sounds like when I tell my young daughter she can't have ice cream for dinner…
"I want it! I want it! I want it!"
Guns are bad Will. They said so on the news. Obama says so too. If we'd just ban them all and give up all our rights we would finally all be safe and bad people wouldn't do bad things anymore.
Keep trying. Facts and reality are on our side. If none of us ever even try to bring common sense back to the discussion, none of us will succeed. I have failed many more times than I have succeeded, but those successes sure feel good.
I've been mulling a thought. One of the problems is tying to have an intellectual discussion with someone approaching it from an emotional angle. An argument that comes to mind is a comparison to the "War on Drugs" as it now elicits the response of being futile, wrong-minded, expensive, never ending and with lots of collateral damage. Do we really want a "War on Guns" following the success of our "War on Drugs" and our "War on Terror"?!
1) Like drugs, attacking the THING instead of the motivation of the person to use the thing is typically ineffectual
2) Like drugs, you impact supply in one area (cocaine/guns), the clients simply adapt (meth/heroin/gas/explosives/poison)
3) People who want drugs GET drugs (people who want guns/explosives/gas/poison will get them)
4) The technology to make drugs is available to those who wish to sell drugs (because we really WANT a black market gun industry?)
5) Drugs can be improvised fairly easily (and so can things to do people harm)
-john
I've been working on changing the mindset with someone for three years. Slowly they've been coming around in theory. Today they wrote asking for purchasing advice.
Little victories add up. Wanted to share a good report when the days ahead look like ploughing concrete.
Eurodriver
06-15-16, 14:00
She also just moved to FL and not far from shooters local,
Tell her to go back. Liberal New Englanders are to Florida what Central Americans are to the USA.
When she asked me why I need an AR
I think the LA Riots were a relate-able, clear-cut illustration on how an AR provides clear role in one's defense.
In reality, ANY time you are trying defend from multiple armed assailants (gang members, home invaders -- esp. in rural areas) or assailants with long-guns...
-john
Tell her to go back. Liberal New Englanders are to Florida what Central Americans are to the USA.
But I moved to FL too, so I figure I balanced out the equation on that score at least.
I prefer ridicule to debate.
If you debate a dumbass, they just get loud and shrill.
If you actively insult and dismiss them, it goes over their head
Eurodriver
06-15-16, 14:34
But I moved to FL too, so I figure I balanced out the equation on that score at least.
Good thinking! :dirol:
This distinction is a leftist one that has been smuggled into public acceptance. And that's why they win the public discussion with the false premise.
A Muslim is a human with a set of beliefs and practices. Those beliefs and practices are not part of his human identity. We know this because he/she can convert and they are still humans.
A gun owner is a human with a set of beliefs and practices. Those beliefs and practices are not part of his human identity. Again, they can convert and remain human.
Enter natural rights: humans, to live freely, engage in beliefs and practices that advance that freedom and retrains concentration of power. It is a right because freedom is a natural end to humankind.
Muslims and gun owners and everyone else have these rights in common in the same way. We would do better in our public rhetoric to speak about the fundamental similarities.
Since we can't regulate beliefs, for they are internal (true if gun owners as well as Muslims) we can regulate the practice with force. To ban guns is like banning mosques. To ban certain guns is like banning certain prayers. To ban talk about guns is like banning the Quran.
As long as we think beliefs and practices are identical to being human, we have lost the foundation of the larger issue already.
Labeling it "leftist" in an attempt to prematurely win the argument won't work, especially if you're trying to argue with a leftist, as is the entire point of this thread.
It's also true. One is depriving people of property, the other is depriving them of even being in the country. Gun owners who lose their firearms will obviously still be in America. Muslims won't just be forbidden from practicing in private, they won't even be allowed in if one Presidential candidate gets his way. And if they say they've left Islam, I bet they still won't be let in.
Which also makes the argument work in reverse - "if you support Trump and think that we shouldn't allow Muslims in and deport most that are still here, why don't you think we should stop importation of firearms and destroy most that are still in the country?" If you don't support Trump's vision of a Christian America, you might have some solid ground to stand on.
I won't call an anti a "leftist" in a conversation. But we aren't mimicking conversations here but shedding light on how to dialog.
If you are a leftist, I apologize. I thought we were on the same team.
I used that term as short form of who has confused the distinctions in public discourse. The philosophical distinction I shared still holds and worth enlightening people about who attach all sorts of crap to their identity and claim you a racist/phobe for thinking it irrational. These are the foundations of natural rights based on humanity and not our constructs. I've seen countless lightbulbs go on among Millennials with this. YMMV.
here is what I would say to the lefty, socialist, commie, pinko :)
as a POTENTIAL immigrant one never had the right to be here and you have no rights until you are in this country LEGALLY so stopping problems before they come in is our right as a country just like all other countries in the world do
and the same reason they raked us over the coals about my wife coming in from another country !!!!! and she has to PROVE she will be a good person here before she was given a green card and ALLOWED to work and why the gov can REVOKE this on her !!! UNTIL she is a citizen so chances are I understand this way more than you do
its obvious you do not understand the constitution !!!! and unlike you I don't have to lie and make up things :)
your 1st amendment right you are using now !!! of course you choose to LIE not a crime but pathetic (about stopping peoples right to practice religion part of the 1st) actually the left is trying to stop Christians but that is another debate !
should I tell you that you can NOT talk about this ? should I decided you do not have that right and if you do I can kill you as an example like in many muslim countries ?
the 2nd I have the right to guns imported or not
the 4th the gov can not just decide to take destroy a persons property
Labeling it "leftist" in an attempt to prematurely win the argument won't work, especially if you're trying to argue with a leftist, as is the entire point of this thread.
It's also true. One is depriving people of property, the other is depriving them of even being in the country. Gun owners who lose their firearms will obviously still be in America. Muslims won't just be forbidden from practicing in private, they won't even be allowed in if one Presidential candidate gets his way. And if they say they've left Islam, I bet they still won't be let in.
Which also makes the argument work in reverse - "if you support Trump and think that we shouldn't allow Muslims in and deport most that are still here, why don't you think we should stop importation of firearms and destroy most that are still in the country?" If you don't support Trump's vision of a Christian America, you might have some solid ground to stand on.
as a POTENTIAL immigrant one never had the right to be here and you have no rights until you are in this country LEGALLY so stopping problems before they come in is our right as a country just like all other countries in the world do
Why do you think that?
If the Constitution is supposed to enshrine and protect rights that all people have by virtue of simply being human, why does it not protect everyone that we have dealings with?
Why do you think that?
If the Constitution is supposed to enshrine and protect rights that all people have by virtue of simply being human, why does it not protect everyone that we have dealings with?
For the same reason non citizens don't have the right to redress the government for grievances.
here would be my reply and most likely my last since they are obviously lack any knowledge about our constitution
quite simple its what the constitution says
first line we the people of the United States !!!!!
it does not say we the people of the world !!!!!
on top of that the 14th the first part is the citizenship clause !
where it says born or naturalized in the United States !!!!
once again does not say born in the world !!!
and once again why my wife and I are going through these steps
notice the word naturalized ! meaning again those not born here have a chance to become a citizen !
before I talk to you anymore go back and read and understand the constitution cause its obvious you have no clue !!!! but the great thing about our country is even idiots like you are allowed to have your views and opinions and I can not infringe on them just like you are not allowed to infringe on mine !!!
the moment you decide you want to limit my rights than I am allowed to limit yours !!!!
best of luck and GOD BLESS YOU !!!!!!
Why do you think that?
If the Constitution is supposed to enshrine and protect rights that all people have by virtue of simply being human, why does it not protect everyone that we have dealings with?
of course not meaning you personally the hypothetical lefty :) hahahhahaha
Why do you think that?
If the Constitution is supposed to enshrine and protect rights that all people have by virtue of simply being human, why does it not protect everyone that we have dealings with?
The US Constitution protect the rights of its citizens. Non-citizens have the same God-given right to be protected in their own nation. If they are willing to die to achieve it.
Why do you think that?
If the Constitution is supposed to enshrine and protect rights that all people have by virtue of simply being human, why does it not protect everyone that we have dealings with?
I get what you are saying. I agree that ALL people do have these rights. But unfortunately we are not the world police nor the world government and we cannot enforce their masters/govts to observe these rights.
They simply need to push the subject and demand their natural born rights for themselves. That's kinda the thing about freedom, you've got to act on it and take it, it is never is GIVEN to you, it is something you must provide for yourself. By whatever means you can. You either allow the shackles to be placed on you or you rip them off.
Doc Safari
06-15-16, 17:46
Frankly, I think the debate just became irrelevant. Obama has turned the issue of gun control over to DHS. Gun control is now a matter of national security. I give it less than 30 days before they have a "no gun buy" list like they have a "no fly" list, and since they demonize the Tea Party and white men and conservative religious types while ignoring radical Islam probably every church member and Republican will be on the "no buy" list soon enough.
Still, there IS a bright side: you can burn your pocket Constitutions to stay warm after martial law is declared and you have no power to your house because they shut off your smart meter.
Outlander Systems
06-15-16, 17:53
https://outlandersystemsblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/image1.jpeg?w=676
Frankly, I think the debate just became irrelevant. Obama has turned the issue of gun control over to DHS. Gun control is now a matter of national security. I give it less than 30 days before they have a "no gun buy" list like they have a "no fly" list, and since they demonize the Tea Party and white men and conservative religious types while ignoring radical Islam probably every church member and Republican will be on the "no buy" list soon enough.
Still, there IS a bright side: you can burn your pocket Constitutions to stay warm after martial law is declared and you have no power to your house because they shut off your smart meter.
I could be wrong but I think Koshinn was saying why do you think that as a hypothetical argument stand point not as himself :) sure he will clear it up :)
Why do you think that?
If the Constitution is supposed to enshrine and protect rights that all people have by virtue of simply being human, why does it not protect everyone that we have dealings with?
Well, I have always read the preamble in a literal sense "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
My reading of that is, all human beings have those Basic Human Rights for which no man nor government can grant or remove. I do think it applies to non US citizens, as we are all on this tiny blue ball in space together. It carries the weight of law for any US citizen and is enforceable, but to me, a sentence all people should strive for and acknowledge, but they have to do it. Liberty not earned is never cherished, and we all know we now have more than enough people here who don't "get" that much less non citizens who will have to fight for their own.
I get what you are saying. I agree that ALL people do have these rights. But unfortunately we are not the world police nor the world government and we cannot enforce their masters/govts to observe these rights.
They simply need to push the subject and demand their natural born rights for themselves. That's kinda the thing about freedom, you've got to act on it and take it, it is never is GIVEN to you, it is something you must provide for yourself. By whatever means you can. You either allow the shackles to be placed on you or you rip them off.
I'm not talking about being the world police or the world government.
If for example someone wants to gain entry to the country, the U.S. Government has a say in what happens. Should it not be forced to treat those with whom it must deal with using the same rules and restrictions as it must its own citizens?
If the government only recognizes the natural born rights of citizens, are they really natural born rights?
For the same reason non citizens don't have the right to redress the government for grievances.
Really? I haven't heard that. Last I checked, even illegal immigrants have protection under the 1st Amendment.
The US Constitution protect the rights of its citizens. Non-citizens have the same God-given right to be protected in their own nation. If they are willing to die to achieve it.
Citizenship isn't a requirement for exercising Constitutional rights.
BUT he has said the constitution :) and that is different than meaning all people should have rights sadly do not and we can be that safe haven for those that want those rights
again key point OUR constitution and OUR rights as Citizens :)
again why the United States and again the below easy to check if this is the case ? if it was for ALL people it would have been said so
when in Panama do you have the exact rights there as you do here ?
agree all men should have the freedom but they do not
Well, I have always read the preamble in a literal sense "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
My reading of that is, all human beings have those Basic Human Rights for which no man nor government can grant or remove. I do think it applies to non US citizens, as we are all on this tiny blue ball in space together. It carries the weight of law for any US citizen and is enforceable, but to me, a sentence all people should strive for and acknowledge, but they have to do it. Liberty not earned is never cherished, and we all know we now have more than enough people here who don't "get" that much less non citizens who will have to fight for their own.
yes it is :) lets check this
can non citizens can own fire arms legally ? and vote legally ? can they be booted from our country ?
so can citizens own guns ? can citizens vote ? can citizens be protected from being booted from our country etc..
that alone is a check for our constitution rights
people are granted certain rights as non citizens but not all rights :)
I'm not talking about being the world police or the world government.
If for example someone wants to gain entry to the country, the U.S. Government has a say in what happens. Should it not be forced to treat those with whom it must deal with using the same rules and restrictions as it must its own citizens?
If the government only recognizes the natural born rights of citizens, are they really natural born rights?
Really? I haven't heard that. Last I checked, even illegal immigrants have protection under the 1st Amendment.
Citizenship isn't a requirement for exercising Constitutional rights.
people are granted certain rights as non citizens but not all rights :)
And that's because we have chosen to protect those rights of non-citizens, not because we are obligated.
And if we open up the picture, US involvement in nation building in other regions has partly been to give others a chance to protect their rights. Sadly that gets muddled with greedy politics and business and that people who are given the chance have no idea the public trust required to do it.
And then progressives think helping other nations protect their rights is "imperialism." Meanwhile we let multiculturalism's imperialize our culture and we watch our protection of rights erode.
Another simple thought experiment:
We can't stop them from calling for killing of infidels due to infringement of their 1St Amendment Rights
We can't close down nor otherwise interfere with the places they preach this as it will be an infringement on their Freedom Of Religion and or their First Amendment Rights
But we can infringe on people's Second Amendment Rights, the vast majority of which will not use firearms to commit a crime, do not preach killing of anyone not like them, who will not abuse the spirit and nature of the First Amendment and Freedom of Religion
yet our gov has attacked Christians and conservatives most recently using the IRS !
Another simple thought experiment:
We can't stop them from calling for killing of infidels due to infringement of their 1St Amendment Rights
We can't close down nor otherwise interfere with the places they preach this as it will be an infringement on their Freedom Of Religion and or their First Amendment Rights
But we can infringe on people's Second Amendment Rights, the vast majority of which will not use firearms to commit a crime, do not preach killing of anyone not like them, who will not abuse the spirit and nature of the First Amendment and Freedom of Religion
KalashniKEV
06-16-16, 15:21
I wanted to follow up on a short comment i made in the Orlando thread with this thought experiment you can use on other forums.
I don't think this is really all that clever... as others have already explained in the other thread, it's all about societal benefit.
parishioner
06-18-16, 15:42
http://i1056.photobucket.com/albums/t374/jordandalleman1/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpscfbhyhsl.jpeg
Another argument from the left I keep running into.
The problem is all these arguments get off on the wrong foot. If they don't recognize the 2nd as a fundemental, constitutional, human right, its a non starter. Just today on the huffington post they are claiming the way the 2nd amendment is written is actually in the lefts favor due to the word "regulate". They think hey it's free to regulate.
This is a very frustrating time.
If they want equivalent, the thousands of gun laws on the books are like TSA and no fly lists. What they want now is the banning of airplanes so neither citizens nor terrorists can use them.
And the 2a says a regulated militia, not regulated arms. In other words, those who bear arms are free to form militias.
Keep giving it back to them.
I think it is a gas that a millenial South African comedian considers himself the smartest man in the room on national security of the US.
If they wanted to hijack or sabotage another plane today, they would and could.
Reftesh my memory, how many planes have been destroyed in the last two years....no..two months because of malice?
And the No Fly did not a damn thing.
[IMG] Just today on the huffington post they are claiming the way the 2nd amendment is written is actually in the lefts favor due to the word "regulate". They think hey it's free to regulate.
This is a very frustrating time.
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160619/7a3a0f74df3d0f2445581ab6258d8389.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.