If you want to piss off a gun control person...

[CypherPunk]

That was the best reply I've read so far.

You, Sir, are a cut and paste Ninja.

I will try talking (just puked) to them.

How do I get this taste out of my mouth?

Aka CopyPasta

 

[dblas]

Here His comment about his new AR was in a different tweet, not directed at me, so it'll take some digging to find.

Sadly, I didn't make it to the town hall at Goucher. Family emergency. I was actually looking forward to a non-Twitter-constrained conversation.

And, for the record, I wouldn't normally post conversations like this because I find it to be bad form. But, it's also public record, so anyone else could have dug it up anyways with enough patience.

I wouldn't have asked if I didn't think it wasn't public record.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Redcobra]

Let me play the anti to your statements. It happened to me recently.

When I want to piss off a gun control person I tell him that normally I would have only one AR-15 at home, but because of gun-grabbers like him, now I have three so a can bequeath one to each of my children.

When I want to win over a gun control person I make a few of these arguments:
1. The best argument I've read was made by Cesare Beccaria in the 18th century: Disarmament laws disarm only those who follow all laws, like the victims who have zero intent to violate any laws, even small ones. Those willing to break our highest laws, i.e. willing to murder, rape, kidnap and assault, do not care at all for disarmament laws. Therefore disarmament laws are not "useless" but rather inherently dangerous because they disarm only potential victims, which emboldens perpetrators of atrocities.
That was the 18th Century. Things are different now.
2. Do I "need" an AR-15? First of, are the first ten amendments to the U.S. constitution known as the Bill of Rights or Bill of Needs? Secondly, if you want to ban the AR-15, the best selling rifle of the past twenty years, you can ban any firearm. In such case, what is the point of having a 2nd Amendment? What is the point of having a Bill of Rights, or a constitution of that matter, at all? Gun-grabbers are trying to ban the AR-15 Venezuelan-style: by ordinary legislation independent of what the constitution says. There is a legal way to ban the AR-15: amend the constitution. When people respected the constitution and they wanted to ban alcoholic beverages, they amended the constitution. Now some want to ban an item explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights and they feel there is no need to amend the constitution!
The document is so outdated. The whole thing needs to be re-written to reflect today's society.
3. If guns in the hands of the law abiding lead to crime, why isn't Switzerland, the most armed country on this planet, where every male brings home a rifle or pistol, a mess? Have you ever been to Zurich or Geneva?
Yes I have been to Swizerland. They are anal-retentive and not crowded and have a better government. No gangs.
4. If guns lead to suicides, why is the Japanese suicide rate almost twice the American rate? Guns may increase the share of suicides committed with guns, compared to jumping off bridges or hanging, but last time I read about this subject there were no studies conclusively showing that the availability of guns increases the overall suicide rate.
The Oriental mind works differently, and it's the pollution and crowding that makes them kill themselves. They'd rather die than be ashamed. You know...Hari Kari.
5. The idea that the U.K. is more peaceful than the U.S. is notoriously false. Do not let their low homicide rate fool you. Their overall violent crime rate is higher than the American one. Just one example: their rate of hot burglaries, i.e. burglaries with the home owner present, is almost four times higher than the American rate. Do you know why? Very simple: American burglars try to avoid American homeowners because the former know there is a good chance the latter will shoot intruders.
I was in London and didn't see any crime and Bobbies don't carry guns..
6. I love this argument that we are a "civilized society and therefore we don't need guns". In their time Russia was a pretty developed nation when it had its Marxist revolution. Germany, Italy and Japan were fairly developed when their governments went crazy. To think that the masses of Americans do not need firearms because we are wealthy and at this moment our government is behaving seems very short-sighted to me. While the going is good many forget how bad things can quickly get.
Here again, you are talking about a long time ago. Nothing has happened there since the Nuclear age began.

This is the kind of crap I get when I argue with a zealous anti.

 

[agstevens05]

Let me play the anti to your statements. It happened to me recently.


This is the kind of crap I get when I argue with a zealous anti.

I get number 1 and 2 all the time. Then I bring up licensing as unconstitutional and they mention how we need a license to drive. Have to come back with driving is not a right. Shuts them up sometimes.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

I get number 1 and 2 all the time. Then I bring up licensing as unconstitutional and they mention how we need a license to drive. Have to come back with driving is not a right. Shuts them up sometimes.

A better response is that the Constitution does not cover transportation in general.

Whether we're talking about automobiles now or horses back then.

You have no RIGHT to transportation.

My favorite is when they use the word REGULATED when talking about the militia. They approach this as if there were gun control policies in place that covered the use of muskets.

They mean well, but they're just brainwashed and ignorant (uninformed).

 

[Brooklyn]

"Here I know I will catch some flak."

Not from me --- if it works. You will know in about 10 seconds if you are wasting your time.

They say " we have a gun violence problem don't you agree?"

You say "No we have a gang violence problem".

You will either see the light go on, or will stammer on about yes but ....
"With out the gun .."
" never solve everything "
" if it saves one life"
" let's deal with the gun cause its too complicated ..."


No buts. You are wasting your time. You can never prove that no one will never be hurt by a gun. You can never prove that a life might not be saved.

We must spend our time on those that are still capable of rational thought. We must find them. And we must talk to them,but once you are in la la land you must move on. Fast. One on one is slow enough ....

But if you can shift the debate the great, if not then move to the next ...we do not have time for anything else.

 

[Hopalong]

We must spend our time on those that are still capable of rational thought. We must find them. And we must talk to them,but once you are in la la land you must move on. Fast. One on one is slow enough ....

But if you can shift the debate the great, if not then move to the next ...we do not have time for anything else.

That's exactly what I do. I focus my energy on those who will listen, but I always at least try once or twice with those who don't seem to. I've been pleasantly surprised by how many will listen if I phrase things correctly.

Also, see my other thread on how I shift the debate off of guns and back onto people and feel free to add your thoughts if you like.

 

[Right2Carry]

I have a few neighbors that are anti-gun, and they didn't know that Maryland already has background checks on firearm purchases. In fact, they knew very little about firearms. They are just "moms" simply afraid of guns.

 

[Hopalong]

I have a few neighbors that are anti-gun, and they didn't know that Maryland already has background checks on firearm purchases. In fact, they knew very little about firearms. They are just "moms" simply afraid of guns.

These are the people we need to be focusing most of our attention on: the un(der)-educated, not the zealots. Try explaining to them how things really work. And get them to the range if at all possible.

 

[Merlin]

I have a few neighbors that are anti-gun, and they didn't know that Maryland already has background checks on firearm purchases. In fact, they knew very little about firearms. They are just "moms" simply afraid of guns.

That goes to show you what a large impact the news media has on the way people think. I'm sure most of the non-gun people that could not care less one way or the other about the 2A or guns has herd the term, "Gun Show Loophole" so much they all think we can walk into any gun show and walk out with any gun we want without a background check.

 

[Merlin]

These are the people we need to be focusing most of our attention on: the un(der)-educated, not the zealots. Try explaining to them how things really work. And get them to the range if at all possible.

Right you are. The problem is the main stream media has that market cornered.

 

[daggo66]

I post a question on the Maryland for Gun Control website asking why he needed an AR15 when he advocated banning anyone else from owning them in the future. Not surprisingly it was deleted.

 

[Hopalong]

I post a question on the Maryland for Gun Control website asking why he needed an AR15 when he advocated banning anyone else from owning them in the future. Not surprisingly it was deleted.

Good job. Now I'll seriously have to find that tweet and post a link to it....

 

[agstevens05]

A better response is that the Constitution does not cover transportation in general.

Whether we're talking about automobiles now or horses back then.

You have no RIGHT to transportation.

My favorite is when they use the word REGULATED when talking about the militia. They approach this as if there were gun control policies in place that covered the use of muskets.

They mean well, but they're just brainwashed and ignorant (uninformed).

Yeah you are right that is a better response. You got to break it down for these people they have been brainwashed by the media so much that it has dumbed down their mind.

 

[Hopalong]

Here His comment about his new AR was in a different tweet, not directed at me, so it'll take some digging to find.

Sadly, I didn't make it to the town hall at Goucher. Family emergency. I was actually looking forward to a non-Twitter-constrained conversation.

And, for the record, I wouldn't normally post conversations like this because I find it to be bad form. But, it's also public record, so anyone else could have dug it up anyways with enough patience.

Just so everyone is aware, the tweets I posted above were NOT from the organization associated with Vinny DeMarco. Apparently Marylanders Against Gun Violence is a different organization than Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence.

Just wanted to clear that up. I accept full responsibility for the mix-up.

 

[daggo66]

I am now banned from posting on either of them. I'm seriously considering writing to one of the local newspapers to "out" him.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

SENSORSHIP ALERT!!!!! SENSORSHIP ALERT!!!!!

PC POLICE.

PULL OVER.

There is, in my opinion, an attempt to quiet/hush/shut-down some people on this Fourm.

I can understand some of it, but I thought this was a place to throw out "food-for-thought" and a cornucopia of ideas that challenge one's mind.

Some topics I see are a tad edgy in nature and I, for one, find them to be interesting reading. Sometimes it's nice to have "outside-the-box" ideas tossed about.

Going down this avenue gives some people a chance to excersise their minds. What people say on the news may or may not true and I feel there is always another angle and another way of looking at a given problem.

In fact, some things people say are just a way to get others to join in a conversation just to see what direction it goes.

Sometimes, a person doesn't even agree with what they write on these boards.

Just my .02

 

[iH8DemLibz]

Just wanted to clear that up. I accept full responsibility for the mix-up.[/QUOTE]

Throwing one's self on one's sword is always the best policy.

Admit to your mistake and march on smartly.

 

[Hopalong]

Just wanted to clear that up. I accept full responsibility for the mix-up.

Throwing one's self on one's sword is always the best policy.

Admit to your mistake and march on smartly.[/QUOTE]

Exactly what I'm trying to do. The intel was good, I just took an incorrect leap by connecting MDAGV, as opposed to MD2PGV, to Vinny DeMarco. I in no way want to spread false information about anyone.

Let the other guys do that. But not me. Not us.

 

[Haides]

So Vinny doesn't have an AR?