Help me come up with some cogent 2A arguments

I really want some help from you guys. I have tried just about every intelligent and rational argument I can think of with my anti-2A friends (yes, I can still be friends with folks who believe differently than I do), and my head is about ready to explode. And I admit I'm a dumbass for trying to reason with closed minded folks. But just maybe I can open some eyes and minds along the way.

Non-gun folks (in many cases) just don't have the life experience, or Constitutional concerns, to appreciate how far our rights have been eroded. And while I think we all have a common goal of reducing innocent victims of crime, and especially keeping guns out of the hands of folks who just shouldn't have them in the first place, we certainly have different ways to get there.

With all of the current emotional hysteria to ban bump stocks and AR type rifles, right now I'm trying to craft some different approaches that might relate to the hobbies that my friends enjoy that aren't firearm related. Here's what I've got so far, and I encourage everyone to help craft a longer, more complete and more convincing list. I deliberately omitted any reference to the 2A in the lists.



Trying to come up with parallel arguments against more gun control

Relating to cars:

How would you feel if engine size were limited to four cylinders?
How would you feel if you could only own certain brands or models? And it was illegal to buy, sell or trade banned models?
How would you feel if the vehicle’s speed were electronically limited to the posted speed limit? Okay now, no Lone Ranger jokes.
How would you feel about mandatory alcohol breathalyzers to start the car?
How would you feel about a mandatory electronic block against all cell phone communication by the driver?
How would you feel about a limit on the size of the fuel tank to only allow a range of 100 miles?


Relating to powerboats:

How would you feel if the maximum engine size were limited to just getting the boat up on a plane?
How would you feel if there were a mandatory life jacket requirement for ALL passengers to wear one if the boat is underway?
How would you feel about a limit on the size of your fuel tank?
How would you feel about a ban on certain boat types, like ski boats? Or jet skis?


Relating to the First Amendment?

How would you feel about not being able to speak your mind on religious matters?
How would you feel about restrictions on what you could post online?
How would you feel about censorship of everything that is published in the media, to only allow what the government approves?


Other hobbies?

So no “ eff you ,you pinko commy piece of shyte”?

Ok this leaves me out

I've tried some of these arguments, and others - such as "How would you feel if the government banned sharp knives, since those are used to commit crimes? All knives have to be dulled henceforth?"

Fact of the matter is, anti-2A people don't listen to logic or rational thought. They're not interested in learning about the "other side" or truly listening to what we have to say. They just dig in their heels, put their fingers in their ears and spout the same anti-2A BS until they're red in the face.

Guys, I appreciate your frustration... and I share it. But I want to keep trying to open some eyes. Please keep future comments to constructive thoughts in that vein. This isn't a thread for bitching, even though we all want to. Thanks.

2a was meant for muskets just like 1a was meant for quill and parchment. So no internet, Facebook, Twitter, blocking streets, your choice of clothing, or leaving school.

The "If we can save just one life" arguement

The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that as of 2014, illegal immigrants were convicted and sentenced for over 13 percent of all crimes committed in the U.S.

According to the FBI, 67,642 murders were committed in the U.S. from 2005 through 2008, and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. The General Accounting Office documents that criminal immigrants committed 25,064 of these murders.

To extrapolate out these statistics, this means that a population of just over 3.5 percent residing in the U.S. unlawfully committed 22 percent to 37 percent of all murders in the nation. This is astounding.

Click to expand...

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/crime/329589-the-truth-about-crime-illegal-immigrants-and-sanctuary-cities

By these numbers, rifles of all kinds (not just assault rifles) kill 370 people per year, according to FBI Crime Data. Illegal immigrants kill 4,177 people per year, according to the non-partisan GAO. If you care about saving lives, shouldn't we ban ban illegal immigrants instead of "assault weapons"?

-or-

An estimated 3,000 teenagers die each year due to sending and receiving text messages while driving

Click to expand...

http://techland.time.com/2013/05/14/study-more-teens-killed-texting-while-driving-than-by-drunk-driving/

All rifles kill 370 people per year. 3,000 (10x more) teens are killed texting and driving each year. If you want to save teen lives, ban texting and driving, not "assault rifles".

Persuading people to give up deeply held beliefs is extraordinarily difficult. You might win some converts among those who are basically undecided but won't have much luck with people who have already made up their minds, no matter your arguments or the evidence.

This is not a left/right thing. It is just human nature and there are plenty of social science studies to support that.

That said, the dull-knife argument seems pretty decent. The car ones aren't nearly as compelling. Were I on the other side I'd counter it with something like, "Ok, let's regulate guns like we do driving." And then list the myriad ways cars and driving are regulated.


Sent from my SM-T710 using Tapatalk

Yea pretty sure that the car argument doesnt hold up. There are very few disqualifying crimes that prevent you from owning a car. And actually nobe of them prevent ownership, just operation.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

So heres an issue Ive been dealing with recently. I have a handful of friends that have beghn drifting to the anti side in recent years and all of the former logic they had now seems to escape them. In the past Ive been able to put it aside, but as I get older I struggle much more remainig friendly with someone who would willingly strip me of my rights.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

1. The anti's don't want "common sense" gun control. Their end goal is to ultimately ban guns and to eliminate the Second Amendment, de jure or de facto. They know that isn't feasible to do all in one bite, so they have adopted a tactic of incrementalism.

2. Incrementalism requires that "gun violence" not be solved with "common sense" measures, because that would eliminate the reasons for the ultimate goal: ban firearms and repeal the Second Amendment.

3. "Common sense" gun control is a series of ineffective measures that common sense should tell anyone who has any that it won't solve the "gun violence" problem. So long as there is one shooting per year with a single-shot zip gun, there will be "gun violence," and therefore the need for more "common sense" gun control.

4. "Gun violence" doesn't correlate to the number of guns or to lax gun laws. In fact:
a. There are more guns "out there" than ever, and overall "gun violence" is going down.
b. The geographical locations where there are more legal guns has less crime than where there are fewer legal guns.
c. The jurisdictions with the most restrictive guns laws have the most gun crime.

5. People who refer to guns "on the street" are conflating total gun ownership, the overwhelming majority of which are not "on the street," or are possessed by concealed permit holders, with those that really are "on the street," e.g. possessed by drug dealers and other felons, who shouldn't have them. Again, it's another emotional, fact-less argument.

6. The anti-'s depend on confusion, conflation, and emotion to bolster their arguments. The shooting of innocent victims is always tragic and unfortunate, but it pales by comparison to drug overdose deaths, motor vehicle deaths, and other avoidable deaths.

7. Those who say "I support the Second Amendment, but..." are liars. They don't support the Second Amendment. They want to define the rule by its exceptions.

8. Gun control is people control. Government control over people. The Founding Fathers, who had real first-hand experience, knew that, and that's why the Second Amendment was adopted.

Just a few thoughts.

Wayne LaPierre is talking live now, to CPAC. On FBN.

Kudos to you Mr. Ed for trying to bridge ideological gaps, however, preaching is a waste of time when the mind is closed.
Communication must be heard, but in the case of many people, their hearing aids have run out of battery.
Bless you for trying, I gave up some time ago.

all the arguments against gun control make sense to all of us. but a lot of people don't own guns and don't appreciate the 2a and just believe that the more guns out there, the higher the chance they will be used against them. even knowing that a ban or restriction wouldn't remove all the guns, and knowing that criminals already don't follow laws and thus won't be affected, if new laws, bans, and restrictions just get a couple of guns off the street, they are certainly no worse off and might be a little better off. so yeah they push and vote to ban and restrict as it (at least in their minds) costs them absolutely nothing.

drunk driving, texting while driving, and even knives and bats all result in lots of deaths, but most folks have a drink here and there, have cell phones, etc and so they're not pushing for bans of these things. no investment in guns, no reason to not ban them.

don't know how you fight that mentality. my thing is let's try getting the bad guys out of circulation first, as it is actually people committing these crimes. violent criminal - put and stay in jail, period, end of story, should be a no-brainer but it clearly doesn't work that way. 10, 20 and even 30 police responses to your house, something needs to happen while that gets sorted out. post online threats - get put away just as if you actually followed through.

slippery slope though. your ahole neighbor calls the cops on you in spite once or twice. or ex-spouse does the same. see a shrink for ptsd or whatever. the trick is where is the line drawn.

Even though it is the people not guns that kill, anti-2a folks call firearms inherently dangerous. What about swimming pools? They are inherently dangerous and quick and unscientific google says drownings are about a quarter of the amount of gun deaths. So, then shouldn't we ban swimming pools using that logic?

Amen. Our founding Fathers didn't trust the government and THEY WERE the government.. what does that say?

The problem is that they are arguing with emotion and you are arguing with logic.

The harsh reality of these attacks, whether it is said out loud or not, is that while these attacks are heavily publicized and politicized, they are relatively rare and the casualties are relatively small. I don't even know if it's true or not given the awful state of our media, but it was reported by some that the London Mayor said something along the lines of "terrorist attacks are part and parcel of living in a bit city." Well, the same type of logic applies to guns. These attacks are part and parcel of the 2nd amendment. It is a freedom granted by the Constitution that some people abuse. And you have to weigh whether the death of X number of people is worth getting rid of that freedom. The left believes that freedom is so unimportant that even 1 death is worth getting rid of the freedom EVEN if getting rid of it won't actually change anything.

I don't have the exact numbers, but I'm sure you could pull them up if you wanted to make educated arguments backed with independent sources, but the estimates are along the lines of:
~33k gun deaths a year, where 66% are suicides. That leaves ~11k gun deaths a year that are non-suicide. Now what if you start taking out the deaths from gang-related or other criminal activity in Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis, etc.? Where does that leave you? And of the number that are left, what % is from mass or spree shooters? And so the question is then is it worth destroying the 2nd amendment to possibly prevent these deaths?

I think maybe what you ask is that: if you can agree that mass shootings are X deaths a year, then the next question is this. Imagine that there are some abortion doctors out there performing illegal abortions. The baby is born after 9 months, full-term, but the mother doesn't want it. Some doctors will even kill babies that are up to 2-3 months old. Now imagine that's happening in exactly the same numbers are mass school shooting gun deaths. Would you be in favor of completely banning abortions? How about background checks for abortions? How about a 10 day waiting period? How about having to apply for a license from the State in order to get an abortion? Etc. Etc.

Back to the OP's question.. ask the misinformed how would they feel about being fingerprinted and taxed with extensive background check and waiting period for the following: voter qualification license (15A and 19A and 24A and 26A); or being fingerprinted and taxed with extensive background check and waiting period for the following: writing/speaking/posting on social media qualification license (1A). And should also violate the 14A by deprive liberty without due process.

No one needs alcohol. It provides no nutritional value and banning commercial sales would save ~20k lives annually just in drunk driving accidents alone.

No one needs to swim for recreation. You can walk for exercise and take a shower if you want to get wet. Banning recreational swimming would save ~4k lives annually.

No one needs foods with added sugar and fat in their food. Potatoes and butter coupled with a multivitamin will provide all the nutrients you need to live. Cutting out food with added sugar and fat will drastically reduce the number of people who die of heart disease every year, ~600k (the number 1 killer in the US).

The US has a guarantee that Force of Arms (rifles, shotguns, pistols, clubs, swords, etc) belongs to citizens. Citizens cannot rely on the government to protect them as the government has it's own agenda and interests and will protect those first before protecting citizens. This has been borne out throughout history over and over again. It was just on display in Parkland.

If the police can't/won't protect citizens, who will?

doggyjacket said:

The problem is that they are arguing with emotion and you are arguing with logic.

The harsh reality of these attacks, whether it is said out loud or not, is that while these attacks are heavily publicized and politicized, they are relatively rare and the casualties are relatively small. I don't even know if it's true or not given the awful state of our media, but it was reported by some that the London Mayor said something along the lines of "terrorist attacks are part and parcel of living in a bit city." Well, the same type of logic applies to guns. These attacks are part and parcel of the 2nd amendment. It is a freedom granted by the Constitution that some people abuse. And you have to weigh whether the death of X number of people is worth getting rid of that freedom. The left believes that freedom is so unimportant that even 1 death is worth getting rid of the freedom EVEN if getting rid of it won't actually change anything.

I don't have the exact numbers, but I'm sure you could pull them up if you wanted to make educated arguments backed with independent sources, but the estimates are along the lines of:
~33k gun deaths a year, where 66% are suicides. That leaves ~11k gun deaths a year that are non-suicide. Now what if you start taking out the deaths from gang-related or other criminal activity in Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis, etc.? Where does that leave you? And of the number that are left, what % is from mass or spree shooters? And so the question is then is it worth destroying the 2nd amendment to possibly prevent these deaths?

I think maybe what you ask is that: if you can agree that mass shootings are X deaths a year, then the next question is this. Imagine that there are some abortion doctors out there performing illegal abortions. The baby is born after 9 months, full-term, but the mother doesn't want it. Some doctors will even kill babies that are up to 2-3 months old. Now imagine that's happening in exactly the same numbers are mass school shooting gun deaths. Would you be in favor of completely banning abortions? How about background checks for abortions? How about a 10 day waiting period? How about having to apply for a license from the State in order to get an abortion? Etc. Etc.

Click to expand...

The cold, hard statistics show that there has to be an ulterior motive behind all of this. The statistics don't match their rhetoric.

That ulterior motive is control, and to achieve that, they need to ban guns altogether.

It's not complicated. It's happened many times in world history.

What happens when the good guys don't have guns any more, and only the bad guys do? We become Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, China.

There are a lot of evil people in this country in positions of power and authority, who want us to become that. And even more useful idiots who are gladly and blindly helping them.

I simply choose not to engage. Entrenched emotional views and thinly veiled attempts to achieve other goals cannot be countered.
- Mr Ed (gen 1)