A method for approaching anti's

imported post

I have a close friend who was on the fence about handguns, that is, she was not convinced that it was a good thing for "regular people" to own them, carry them, etc, etc. She didn't actively support any anti groups, but wouldn't have been to upset to hear of any new gun control measures.
I thought that if I removed some of her ignorance of handguns by taking her shooting, it might cause her to rethink her position. It sort of worked - she eventually became interested in acquiring her own, but she was torn. She still wasn't sure if she could be on board mentally, it it would be safe to have a gun in her house, if she would ever feel comfortable carrying it.
We went to the gun shop, she found one that she liked and decided to go for it. She went through the paperwork rigmarole, got called in, paid her money, and, since we (thankfully) live in a state that no longer has a waiting period, walked out with her gun and a couple of boxes of ammo.
But she was STILL on the fence.
The next day we were watching some news story on OC. About then it sunk in - She, a law abiding citizen, had been able to walk into a store, purchase a gun, and walk out within about an hour. She was now a gun owner, and could carry it with her openly if she chose to. The intentions of the Anti's were now aimed at HER, they didn't want HER to own or carry a handgun. The wanted to infringe on a right SHE had exercised.
I know it seems like an impossible task, especially on a large scale, to convince anti's to step back for a second, exercise their rights, and them reexamine their position. But what if we could! Has anyone ever tried to or had a similar experience?

imported post

Let's reflect back some 200 years & change.

Back then, the "right" wasn't necessarily a right, it was a necessity. When you strip away every peter-pan point, what you're left with is a man, his family, and their property.

I remember my introduction to Criminal Justice course. The instructor really peeled off a lot to reinforce one (very important) point that is, I think, the keystone of not only law enforcement, but bearing arms as well: It protects the weak from the strong.

Of course, strength isn't ignorantly limited to someone's physical ability, rather the unlawful overpowering ability of someone over another. While the declaration of independence guarantees "the right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness", you can't have the latter two without the first.

You have the right to ensure the safety of your life.

Law enforcement is only part (1/3) of the solution. People exercising their right to protect themselves, either by action on their part, or deterrence from the presence of their ability takes a big chunk out of a third. The remaining third, is of course, the law itself. It's been this way since the days of the founding fathers, and it's just as important today as it was back then.

Let me offer something to think about. What was the one time in this country's history that offered the greatest opportunity to destroy America's 2nd Amendment right? Can we agree that when you take up arms against your own, that presents the best justification? Yet in 1865, offering such a gesture would have been considered madness.

I ask myself: What makes today so different?

I hate to merge topics, but I think it's really important to mention the "wild west" and how it relates to this topic....

How "wild" is associated with the carrying of firearms is beyond me. It's not what you have on you, rather what you do with it that determines if it's "wild" or not. Honestly, if you want to dumb it down, you might as well arrest every male since it's our gender that statistically leads in aggressors in rape cases...and we're equipped to "do the deed". I think we all can agree that the vast majority of males who are armed with their weapon of gender act responsibly with their CC penis compared to those who don't.

A silly comparison? I agree! Especially when the Constitution offers me, a law abiding citizen, the right to have a firearm as much a part of my body as the noted above "weapon".


At any rate, the above is what I offer during similar dialog.

imported post

Viorel wrote:

Let's reflect back some 200 years & change.

Back then, the "right" wasn't necessarily a right, it was a necessity. When you strip away every peter-pan point, what you're left with is a man, his family, and their property.

I remember my introduction to Criminal Justice course. The instructor really peeled off a lot to reinforce one (very important) point that is, I think, the keystone of not only law enforcement, but bearing arms as well: It protects the weak from the strong.

Of course, strength isn't ignorantly limited to someone's physical ability, rather the unlawful overpowering ability of someone over another. While the declaration of independence guarantees "the right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness", you can't have the latter two without the first.

You have the right to ensure the safety of your life.

Law enforcement is only part (1/3) of the solution. People exercising their right to protect themselves, either by action on their part, or deterrence from the presence of their ability takes a big chunk out of a third. The remaining third, is of course, the law itself. It's been this way since the days of the founding fathers, and it's just as important today as it was back then.

Let me offer something to think about. What was the one time in this country's history that offered the greatest opportunity to destroy America's 2nd Amendment right? Can we agree that when you take up arms against your own, that presents the best justification? Yet in 1865, offering such a gesture would have been considered madness.

I ask myself: What makes today so different?

I hate to merge topics, but I think it's really important to mention the "wild west" and how it relates to this topic....

How "wild" is associated with the carrying of firearms is beyond me. It's not what you have on you, rather what you do with it that determines if it's "wild" or not. Honestly, if you want to dumb it down, you might as well arrest every male since it's our gender that statistically leads in aggressors in rape cases...and we're equipped to "do the deed". I think we all can agree that the vast majority of males who are armed with their weapon of gender act responsibly with their CC penis compared to those who don't.

A silly comparison? I agree! Especially when the Constitution offers me, a law abiding citizen, the right to have a firearm as much a part of my body as the noted above "weapon".


At any rate, the above is what I offer during similar dialog.

Click to expand...

It is off topic, but I like the point above.

Obviously, if we're going to enact gun control laws, we should also enact Penis Control Laws. A penis is a dangerous weapon with, like a gun, a mind of its own. Think of all the penises out there carried by unqualified people, just waiting to go off and rape somebody.

imported post

so...um...you're not....um....advocating...um...open carry?

imported post

Viorel wrote:

I ask myself: What makes today so different?

Click to expand...

I guess I ramble heh.

In a (very) long winded post, I advocate not only the Second Amendment, but also the right to open carry.

I tried to sum it up in the quote noted above, expanding on the comparison. Apologies if I failed in my effort.

imported post

When it come to the anti's, I prefer to approach them wielding the Louisville slugger, that way they can't accuse me of using a gun.

imported post

Glock34 wrote:

When it come to the anti's, I prefer to approach them wielding the Louisville slugger, that way they can't accuse me of using a gun.

Click to expand...

Thats a really good point. Do you think theyd be anymore comfortable if i carried say a 2x4 with a rusty nail through the end? hehe now i wanna test the waters on this one.

imported post

When dealing with anti's, at least those who are strangers or folks beyond help, I offer calm, measured, reasonable and reasoned, factual responses never allowing myself to be sucked into responding to any emotional jabs because...

it isn't the anti that I am trying to reach.. their minds are closed tighter than Pelosi's botoxed face... I am trying to reach the people who are nearby and listening to the interchange.

And once the anti resorts to frothing at the mouth personal insults everyone within earshot understands the anti has lost not only their tempers but also all credibility.... and...

Gun rights win.

imported post

Actually, per the topic title, why would you approach an anti at all? Is that the kind of publicity you as an OC'er see being positive? Your proactive approach to directly confront those openly opposing it?

Educate by letting them come to you. If they see you as someone approachable, they'll be more inclined to talk to you instead of barking their silliness. On the flip side, if you go to them and a big argument breaks out, who do you think will be viewed as the aggressor? It doesn't matter if you're right, the only thing people standing on the sidelines will see is a hostile person wearing a gun.

The media would LOVE that.

Just go about your business. Let time to the talking.

imported post

Viorel wrote:

Actually, per the topic title, why would you approach an anti at all? Is that the kind of publicity you as an OC'er see being positive? Your proactive approach to directly confront those openly opposing it?

Educate by letting them come to you. If they see you as someone approachable, they'll be more inclined to talk to you instead of barking their silliness. On the flip side, if you go to them and a big argument breaks out, who do you think will be viewed as the aggressor? It doesn't matter if you're right, the only thing people standing on the sidelines will see is a hostile person wearing a gun.

The media would LOVE that.

Just go about your business. Let time to the talking.

Click to expand...

Don't know about anyone else but it has been my personal experience that it is always the anti who approaches me ... it definitely isn't me who approaches them.

But when approached I take pains to not appear hostile in any way.... just calm, reasonable, and factual. And, again personal experience, it is always the anti who loses their temper and becomes hostile.

But then, others may have had different experiences.

imported post

Oh yeah, they'll no doubt push/bait.

To them it isn't about rights. They have (obviously) picked their posture on the subject. Actually, that's an unfair assessment. Most have picked, but there are those who are on the fence and simply want to ensure their safety.

I don't blame them, but the Constitution is what it is & was wrote for a reason.

At any rate, as far as the extreme antis, it's all about any wrong you say/do results in a victory in their camp. It doesn't have to be factually wrong, percieved is just as damaging.

imported post

Bikenut wrote:

When dealing with anti's, at least those who are strangers or folks beyond help, I offer calm, measured, reasonable and reasoned, factual responses never allowing myself to be sucked into responding to any emotional jabs because...

it isn't the anti that I am trying to reach.. their minds are closed tighter than Pelosi's botoxed face... I am trying to reach the people who are nearby and listening to the interchange.

And once the anti resorts to frothing at the mouth personal insults everyone within earshot understands the anti has lost not only their tempers but also all credibility.... and...

Gun rights win.

Click to expand...

This has always been my mode of engagement. I've yet to encounter an anti in public, but I have engaged in forum discussions, knowing that there may be fence setters reading the posts. As you have noted, the anti'salways resort to sandbox insults which should destroy their own crediblity, in the eyes of the observers.

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Bikenut wrote:

When dealing with anti's, at least those who are strangers or folks beyond help, I offer calm, measured, reasonable and reasoned, factual responses never allowing myself to be sucked into responding to any emotional jabs because...

it isn't the anti that I am trying to reach.. their minds are closed tighter than Pelosi's botoxed face... I am trying to reach the people who are nearby and listening to the interchange.

And once the anti resorts to frothing at the mouth personal insults everyone within earshot understands the anti has lost not only their tempers but also all credibility.... and...

Gun rights win.

Click to expand...

This has always been my mode of engagement. I've yet to encounter an anti in public, but I have engaged in forum discussions, knowing that there may be fence setters reading the posts. As you have noted, the anti'salways resort to sandbox insults which should destroy their own crediblity, in the eyes of the observers.

Click to expand...

You rarely can convince the person you are talking to. But, others are listening. Be the one who seems rational.

imported post

I probably could have been more specific in my description: My suspicion is that many of us have people in our lives who care about us and whom we care about that are on the fence or are anti's. These are people may be less inclined to be insulting or automatically dismissive. It may be worth our time to convince them of the soundness of our position, with the method above as a possible tool, failing rational discourse.

imported post

petrophase wrote:

I probably could have been more specific in my description: My suspicion is that many of us have people in our lives who care about us and whom we care about that are on the fence or are anti's. These are people may be less inclined to be insulting or automatically dismissive. It may be worth our time to convince them of the soundness of our position, with the method above as a possible tool, failing rational discourse.

Click to expand...

I would think that the first thing one should do is find out exactly what those folks concerns are about being armed, and work from there.

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

petrophase wrote:

I probably could have been more specific in my description: My suspicion is that many of us have people in our lives who care about us and whom we care about that are on the fence or are anti's. These are people may be less inclined to be insulting or automatically dismissive. It may be worth our time to convince them of the soundness of our position, with the method above as a possible tool, failing rational discourse.

Click to expand...

I would think that the first thing one should do is find out exactly what those folks concerns are about being armed, and work from there.

Click to expand...

I think they said something about the- Wild west shoot outs causing blood to flow like the river.....I know, I know they are such out of touch idiots :? of course we are talking about the same idiots that feel we don't need guns because the police will be there to protect the individual from violent attacks..

imported post

The only blood flowing is in places where guns are outlawed:
Chicago, for example.

Compare the Brady Bunch's list of "bad places where there are evil guns" with the list of places the FBI says have fewer crimes.

They are almost identical.