"discussing" with hardcore anti-gun people

What's the best way to counter the argument the anti-gun people make of "why is it that gun people read extras into the 2nd amendment?"

They didn't care at all about Article 1 Section 25 of the state constitution, "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose".

Any advice would be most helpful.

I'm confused. How are we reading extras into the second ammendment? The SCOTUS already clarified that it's a right of the people, i.e. it's not primarily for forming militias. So, as it is primarily for the people, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's pretty clear cut to me. You can't limit the right at all.

Yeah, I don't really get what they mean, either. My guess is they're getting at the "militia" bit you mention, and that latest SCOTUS ruling states that isn't the case. That's why I'm asking for help.

Get copies of The Second Amendment Primer by Les Adams and The Founders Second Amendment by Stephen Halbrook. Let them read for themselves how the Amendment came to be and what inspired the Founders to write it.

It depends on why they are anti-gun. Chances are, if they are adults, they've formed their belief and there is little likelihood of changing it unless something major happens in their life (like they become a victim)

having said that, people form opinions based on 2 things. logic and emotion.

you have to deduce what the basis of their opinion is (logic or emotion) and then target your response as appropriate.

If their opinion is based on emotion, emotion will be most effective to change their mind. If it is based on emotion, logic won't have much effect. Your logic based response will either be over-their-head or it will be discredited because it doesn't fit their pre-conceived "feeling" of how things should be.

If their opinion is based on logic, then statistics, facts, etc will be effective.

Its likely that if they are an adult and have paid attention to anything over their lifetime, if they had a logic-based conclusion, it wouldn't be anti-gun (as we all know, the facts and statistics as well as common sense completely demonstrate the efficacy of law-abiding people being armed)

People who's opinions are based on emotion don't admit it, so you have to ask probing questions. People who's opinions are based on emotion OFTEN misrepresent statistics to justify their emotional conclusion. They've probably heard something trotted out in the anti-gun media that they latched on to as fact.

A "red flag" that you are dealing with someone's emotions, not logic is if you show them documented proof, either in the form of clearly demonstrating the statistics they tried to quote you are false, or you make a common sense argument that they have no response for, and THEN their response remains something like "thats fine, but I just don't like it" or a dismissive "well, your statistics must be flawed"

If they say "hmm, I never realized that" then you have a logical thinker.

Emotional thinkers continue to deny deny deny and in the end, just mentally shut-off when they can't refute your supporting evidence.

For an emotional thinker you have to appeal to their emotions. Instead of the logic based "well according to EVEN the most conservative measure of defensive use of a gun, 200,000 times a year, a gun is used defensively which makes the incidence of accidental shootings statistically insignificant" you would want to appeal to their emotions: example - "Do you have a daughter?" if they say yes "if your daughter was walking home from working her college waitress job alone at midnight and she was being followed by a thug would you rather she had JUST a cell phone, or a cell phone AND a gun?"

Ask a mother if she were in her car with her kid in the far back seat if a thug came up and tried to car-jack her if she would just get out of the car and let the thug drive away or if she would want to have a gun to defend her innocent baby.

once you break down the emotional barrier with an anti-gun person THEN logic can be used to fortify your position, but the emotional wall must be broken down first with emotion, then once you have turned their emotions in your favor you fortify that with logic.

I know with one of them it's emotion and I'm never going to change his mind.

With the other two, even though they're both gun owners and former military (one navy, one marines), they're both against it. I haven't figured out what their deal is yet.

They all keep talking about how we don't *need* to, how it just puts others at risk, etc. Any facts or stats I bring up about lower crime rates in general, crime rates among lawful open and concealed carriers, etc they just dismiss out of hand. Ditto with arguments about that it's a right guaranteed to us. "It's an outdated right." "That's what the police are for." "None of the other rights can kill someone." etc, etc, etc.

It's amazingly frustrating...far worse than arguing with my 2 year old when she's in a mood (which thankfully is very rare).

John Lott has some awesome books that you should read, full of information that backs up the RKBA and exposes anti beliefs.



Remember:

Firearms are used by people somewhere around 2 to 2.5 million times a year to defend themselves.

11,624 homicides occured in 2004 by use of a firearm


I'm glad those 2 million people were able to defend themselves, sorry that the 11,624 were murdered. Yet the safety of 2 million + is obviously more important than the possibility of becoming one of the 11,624.

The Don said:

Ditto with arguments about that it's a right guaranteed to us. "It's an outdated right." "That's what the police are for." "None of the other rights can kill someone." etc, etc, etc. .

Click to expand...

They may not care about the State Constitution, but more strongly affirms out right to bear arms than does the 2A. By clearly stating "Any lawful purpose".. It takes the militia argument right out of the equation. You can eliminate the 2A and the WI State Constitution looses no authority and neither does our right to bear arms. It is every adult's moral obligation to defend their life and the life of their family. The police are not there to defend your life and the life of your family. By the time they arrive the crime has already been committed and people are already dead or dying. The Courts have ruled that the Police can not be held accountable for failing to save you. The police only have an obligation to cite someone for the crime already committed.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. A cop does not fit in my holster, so I carry a handgun instead.
It is better to have a handgun and not need it than to need one and not have it. Nobody waits for a fire to purchase a fire extinguisher. The same should be true for a firearm.

They may not care about the State Constitution, but more strongly affirms out right to bear arms than does the 2A. By clearly stating "Any lawful purpose".. It takes the militia argument right out of the equation. You can eliminate the 2A and the WI State Constitution looses no authority and neither does our right to bear arms.

Click to expand...

The truth is (unfortunately) many people in this country don't care about EITHER constitution.

There is a huge percentage of the US population that thinks the constitution is a ANCIENT archaic document that was written when we rode on horses and used oil-burning lamps and its so out-of-date that its not practical to rely on for current laws. (of course I vehemently disagree) but thats how a lot of people feel.

I maintain that despite technology having changed, human nature HAS NOT. People are still people, and freedom is still freedom and the framework of limiting the power of a government of the people, by the consent of the governed is valid.

BUT for those people who would dismiss both the federal and state constitution (and there is a huge % of the population that would) constitution-based justifications won't matter either. but as you point out IK, constitution aside there is a VERY practical real-world reason to carry.

The most effective way to handle these emotional thinkers I ever saw was done by Gene German (who's very name is sure to drive Doug into an unhinged rant). This is best done while you are carrying your sidearm. You tell the person that in exactly 3 minutes a crazed 6'2" madman wielding a hunting knife is going to come through that door (the nearest door to where you are) and there is no place for you to run or hide. Their choices are for me to stop the threat, or, I will just stand in the corner and be the best expert witness you can imagine to your murder. It works best with a small audience.

comp45acp said:

The most effective way to handle these emotional thinkers I ever saw was done by Gene German (who's very name is sure to drive Doug into an unhinged rant). This is best done while you are carrying your sidearm. You tell the person that in exactly 3 minutes a crazed 6'2" madman wielding a hunting knife is going to come through that door (the nearest door to where you are) and there is no place for you to run or hide. Their choices are for me to stop the threat, or, I will just stand in the corner and be the best expert witness you can imagine to your murder. It works best with a small audience.

Click to expand...

Hey!!! I'm 6'2" and people tell me I look like a crazed madman...what are you saying?!?!?

seriously though, i like that.

The problem with 'discussing' things is that you need a common frame of reference. "Peace" meant different things to the Soviet Union than it does to the United States.

The Don said:

They didn't care at all about Article 1 Section 25 of the state constitution, "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose".

Click to expand...

Hmmm.... If they don't like that one, I would assume no argument is going to sway them.

While we know SCOTUS has interpreted the 2nd A in our favor, there is enough vagueness in the language and punctuation that a decent (but wrong) argument can be made. Also, some people argue that the Constitution is old so it needs to be 'interpreted' to todays standards.

With the WI Constitution, both those arguments are gone. It was passed in 1998 and is very clearly worded.

So, my answer I guess would be why they don't accept the WI Constitution?

this will answer all your questions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2ZF_mjEGP4


nothing else need be said !!!!

It Is Usually Not Worth The Time Trying To Convince An Anti

My experience with anti's is extremely negative. I have had debates with many over the years and not one has ever relented to the logic that we do have the right to keep and bear arms and that we should exercise that right.

I have tried the "Your wife and daughter are home when an intruder breaks in...." and it did not work. The guy actually said he, his wife and daughter would all die rather than fight the intruder(s).

I have tried discussing the 2A using the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers as well as many documented letters and writings by many of the Founding Fathers about the right to keep and bear arms. To no avail.

Over the years I have come to realize (my opinion) that most of these people want the government to control all of our lives and provide us with everything we need to live comfortably. Like the guy who doesn't know how to change a flat tire and always pays someone to do it. Like the guy who doesn't cut his own grass or change the oil in his vehicle...ever...because he doesn't know how and pays someone to do it.

And I would think that if an anti became a victim of a violent crime they would at least reconsider their thoughts about using a firearm for self defense.....but it doesn't seem to happen. Did Barrett start carrying a gun? I know....he is probably surrounded by gun toting body guards now. A friend of mine in Florida had a co-worker subjected to a home invasion. Hmmm...do you think my friend (he is a BIG anti and retired Navy) would consider getting a firearm for at least home defense? Nope. We talked about it and he is convinced the police will save him and his family. (Oh, and he doesn't change his vehicles oil, flat tires or cut his own grass). The anti's usually are stout progressives (in my opinion) and WANT higher taxes and look forward to higher taxes. Why? Well, my friend in Florida actually told me last year he would pay much higher taxes if the grass were cut more often in the medians on the highways he drives on to and from work. He wants to see nice, manicured grass.

Don, I think you are wasting your time trying to talk to anti's. I have never had an anti change his/her mind about firearms. Once they latch onto their insanity they stick with it to the end.

Oh, one thing you CAN say to anti's that are ex-military or public officials...."Didn't you take an Oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution?" Follow that with "So you are a traitor since you are not supporting your Oath." I've used that a few times and they just just the heck up.

The better "man" argument

It was once written that the problem is the actual mindset of the anti gun individual. An anti cannot imagine (in their mind) how one could have a firearm and not go crazy and kill everybody. They actually think if they (the anti) had a gun they would loose control and shoot someone.

Soooooo....

Because they (antis) cannot see how they could possibly have a firearm and not end up using it for an illegal purpose, and because there is no way you/me/we (those who carry) could possibly be more mentally stable, they conclude that just as they imagine they would, we too will use the firearm for an illegal purpose and therefore nobody should have a firearm.

Paraphrase: They KNOW they would go nuts if they had a firearm, and we aren't any better than they are, so they KNOW we will go nuts also.

Those who do not support our right to carry are weak minded and live every day in fear. A pitiful existence.

bnhcomputing said:

It was once written that the problem is the actual mindset of the anti gun individual. An anti cannot imagine (in their mind) how one could have a firearm and not go crazy and kill everybody. They actually think if they (the anti) had a gun they would loose control and shoot someone.

Soooooo....

Because they (antis) cannot see how they could possibly have a firearm and not end up using it for an illegal purpose, and because there is no way you/me/we (those who carry) could possibly be more mentally stable, they conclude that just as they imagine they would, we too will use the firearm for an illegal purpose and therefore nobody should have a firearm.

Paraphrase: They KNOW they would go nuts if they had a firearm, and we aren't any better than they are, so they KNOW we will go nuts also.

Those who do not support our right to carry are weak minded and live every day in fear. A pitiful existence.

Click to expand...

It's an excellent way to put it. I've had many antis tell me that people who carry guns are paranoid. I respond that we are far less paranoid than they are because they don't even trust themselves. I tell them that paranoia is an irrational fear. Fear of criminals is not irrational because it's based in reality. Fear of EVERYBODY, your neighbor, your SELF-- that is the height of paranoia.

attempting to further the cause, and bridge the gap, with my leftist anti-gun relatives, sent them a short note, and an Open Carry pamphlet, will report back on the end result. Didn't get any response from the neighborhood picnic committee on my request to carry. Got a feeling i won't be attending that one.

Gun Facts

It's from 2004, but a lot of information some of us have mentioned already is in here. It's long, but has a lot of good information, I thought. My apologies if it's been covered already in other posts in the past.

I realize, as a couple of you have said, I'm probably not going to change the mind of a hardcore anti, but I'm going to pull out a few of the more interesting tidbits of the article and send it to them, as well as the link to the full article. Maybe it'll dwell on their subconscious and have an effect over time. If they bother to read it, I mean.

http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

The Don, good article!

I particularly like this

Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission . . . without paying a fee . . . or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union—having three times received the "Safest State Award."

Click to expand...

This is what we need to hammer our legislators with Constitutional Carry works! There are not 'wild west shootouts', no 'blood in the streets'.