Posted on Aug 18, 2016
How to Talk About Gun Rights With Gun Control Advocates
11.5K
25
12
6
6
0
The key here is to keep from demonizing the gun control position by finding common ground. It neat to have a lot of statistics and facts at your fingertips but try to "humanize" the concepts and use the other guy's verbiage. Example is the "right to choice", the "right to defend oneself" or "fairness for law abiding citizens." I would like to say you need to turn their emotional arguments against them and put them in the context of reality. Remember, liberals work on the emotional plane vs the factual...if they use facts make sure they haven't made them up.
How to Talk About Gun Rights With Gun Control Advocates
Posted from dailysignal.com
Gun Control
2nd Amendment
Bill of Rights
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
6
6
0
It Beats My Thoughts and Ideas...
Mine... "Your right to Bitch... My right to own... Now go sit in the Corner and don't bother me when you get robbed or Raped..."
Mine... "Your right to Bitch... My right to own... Now go sit in the Corner and don't bother me when you get robbed or Raped..."
(6)
(0)
5
5
0
Interesting article. I have been doing this for some time. When I do, I get called names by the gun rights advocates, who rarely use anything other than emotion to debate the issue with me. Liberals don't use emotional arguments to prove a point, they use factual arguments. The fact that they get emotional while using factual arguments only show how much more they care about their fellow Americans than the conservatives, who seem interested only in themselves.
As a Progressive, and an advocate for stricter gun control measures, I have always maintained that we all have the right to own weapons, and the right to self defense. We also have the right to use weapons for hunting, target shooting, and collecting. I enjoy firing rifles and pistols. I grew up around guns, served in the military with guns, and currently own a gun. In my mind, the problem has never been the ownership of the gun, it has always been the accessories that go along with the gun that has been a problem. It has been the obsessive nature of the people who own guns, the ones who feel they have to have as many as they can afford, with all the latest and greatest bells and whistles. The biggest problem are those who fervently maintain that the ONLY reason for the 2nd Amendment to exist is so we can fight against government forces(like they had any chance of winning that battle).
So my emphasizes in discussing gun control measures has been to question the need for magazines that hold large amounts of bullets, stock modifications that mimic automatic fire, ownership of bullets that were designed go through body armor, or explode on impact, and the need to carry a gun wherever and whenever. To date, I have not had one gun rights advocate explain any of those to me.
Conservatives claim they make factual arguments in the gun debate, but I have yet to see one. By the way, since the article mentioned the shooting at the nightclub in Orlando, an establishment that serves alcohol is one of the last places on earth a gun should be carried. Emotions can run very high after a few drinks. Can you imagine the carnage if one drunk decided to pull his gun out and shoot someone, then all the other drunks decided to protect themselves? Mind boggling.
As a Progressive, and an advocate for stricter gun control measures, I have always maintained that we all have the right to own weapons, and the right to self defense. We also have the right to use weapons for hunting, target shooting, and collecting. I enjoy firing rifles and pistols. I grew up around guns, served in the military with guns, and currently own a gun. In my mind, the problem has never been the ownership of the gun, it has always been the accessories that go along with the gun that has been a problem. It has been the obsessive nature of the people who own guns, the ones who feel they have to have as many as they can afford, with all the latest and greatest bells and whistles. The biggest problem are those who fervently maintain that the ONLY reason for the 2nd Amendment to exist is so we can fight against government forces(like they had any chance of winning that battle).
So my emphasizes in discussing gun control measures has been to question the need for magazines that hold large amounts of bullets, stock modifications that mimic automatic fire, ownership of bullets that were designed go through body armor, or explode on impact, and the need to carry a gun wherever and whenever. To date, I have not had one gun rights advocate explain any of those to me.
Conservatives claim they make factual arguments in the gun debate, but I have yet to see one. By the way, since the article mentioned the shooting at the nightclub in Orlando, an establishment that serves alcohol is one of the last places on earth a gun should be carried. Emotions can run very high after a few drinks. Can you imagine the carnage if one drunk decided to pull his gun out and shoot someone, then all the other drunks decided to protect themselves? Mind boggling.
(5)
(0)
CW4 Eric Clayton
SGT Edward Wilcox
When is a bridge too far? I am all for extensive background checks, red flags and all but what is the redress for some hateful spouse or someone else who touts a red flag for someone just out of spite? We still have to deal with the people from a proactive approach. The current proposals are reactive and deal primarily with the Gus themselves, not the people using them. “The more corrupt the state, the more laws.....” Tacitus. We cannot legislate ourselves out of this problem. There must be a way for law abiding citizens to protect themselves and their property without infringing on their 2nd Amendment rights. I would say magazine over 15 rounds for pistols would be illegal just as those over 30 rounds for rifles would be illegal. No incendiary or armor piercing rounds would be legal and no flachette rounds of any kind. Bump stocks illegal as well. However, those people wanting fully automatic or suppressed weapons already have to undergo a stringent background check.
When is a bridge too far? I am all for extensive background checks, red flags and all but what is the redress for some hateful spouse or someone else who touts a red flag for someone just out of spite? We still have to deal with the people from a proactive approach. The current proposals are reactive and deal primarily with the Gus themselves, not the people using them. “The more corrupt the state, the more laws.....” Tacitus. We cannot legislate ourselves out of this problem. There must be a way for law abiding citizens to protect themselves and their property without infringing on their 2nd Amendment rights. I would say magazine over 15 rounds for pistols would be illegal just as those over 30 rounds for rifles would be illegal. No incendiary or armor piercing rounds would be legal and no flachette rounds of any kind. Bump stocks illegal as well. However, those people wanting fully automatic or suppressed weapons already have to undergo a stringent background check.
(0)
(0)
TSgt Don Dollinger
SGT Edward Wilcox - like your analogies BUT nitrous is NOT illegal in most places lol.
(0)
(0)
CSM Donald McGlasson
Like a conservative I can listen, think about what you said (unlike most liberals) and then find a common ground to defend. I agree that all devices now available are also not necessary to my right to own AND CARRY (when and where I feel the need too). I'm a NRA Endowment member and don't agree in all the propaganda, I too don't see a need for endless mag sizes or drums, noise reducers, and bump stocks, but we MUST have a large contingent to serve our rights. The problem is... when you give ground it only strengthens the grab actions of liberals, a little is never enough!
(1)
(0)
Larry Peterson
SGT Edward Wilcox please post statutes from ANY state where N²O is illegal to install on a car. (Hint, there aren't any, but feel free to knock yourself out.)
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google