How to deal with this type of anti?

[ShoreShooter]

If 2A issues were going our way, we could afford to be picky about things. But they are not.

We need to be inclusive, and bring people into the fold. The numbers of people who will automatically vote in favor of AR weapons in MD isn't a big demographic.

 

[GUNSnROTORS]

Thanks for the input... my friendship with this particular individual goes beyond politics and guns so I don't think I'll skip talking to him but we usually just avoid the issues. I foolishly thought I could get him on board against the spent ammo being illegal in DC thing but I overestimated him!

Maintaining contact to affect conversion or influence voting, that's one thing (well, two things). "Friendship", that's another.

Illogical thinkers are erratic and unpredictable ... unsuitable for friendship, particularly when the chips are down.

 

[Scott7891]

Your friends are the definition of the "FUDD".

They only like their hunting/sporting rifle for that purpose but anything else is just for "killing".

I despise them worse than anti's. At least anti's stay true and for the most part own no guns. These guys are backstabbers. Tread lightly with them when in company. If they are willing to sell you out on guns what else would they sell you out on??

 

[FireAtWill]

I'm unclear if this a a single friend of Seth's , or representive comments of several friends. But no matter either way.

1. You will not be able to presently change his/ their minds absent larger changes in their philosophies , or substantial changes in our gun laws.

2. While it's frustrating he/ they aren't working on our side , neither are they activly working against us.

Breaking off with them won't gain anything , maintain cordial relations , and communications with them pending future developements. Heck go hunting with them if you otherwise care to. If nothing else you will be a positive role model of a 2A supporter , and you will be on hand if/when their attitudes/ conditions change.

There are plenty of active antigunners , and completely uninformed people to focus your efforts on meanwhile.

What Biggfoot said... There are multiple subjects which my friends and I don't agree on. But the fact that we stay friends and respect each others' positions gives us many opportunities to talk about those issues. I've found that the best way to change someone's mind is to start with where they are rather than trying to yank them over to your side. You'll never change his mind by walking away from him. My 2 cents...

 

[DanGuy48]

......What can we do to change their minds?

I think they're lost, and they would not be my friends because I couldn't respect them, for this reason, most clearly stated by Ayn Rand.
*****************************
"One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.

Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.

It is obvious who profits and who loses by such a precept. It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men’s virtues and from condemning men’s vices. When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you—whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?

But to pronounce moral judgment is an enormous responsibility. To be a judge, one must possess an unimpeachable character; one need not be omniscient or infallible, and it is not an issue of errors of knowledge; one needs an unbreached integrity, that is, the absence of any indulgence in conscious, willful evil. Just as a judge in a court of law may err, when the evidence is inconclusive, but may not evade the evidence available, nor accept bribes, nor allow any personal feeling, emotion, desire or fear to obstruct his mind’s judgment of the facts of reality—so every rational person must maintain an equally strict and solemn integrity in the courtroom within his own mind, where the responsibility is more awesome than in a public tribunal, because he, the judge, is the only one to know when he has been impeached."

 

[ninjaroll]

Say this to your friend . I respect your 1A right to voice your opinion on the 2A, I respectfully disagree with your opinion. But notice that I don't want to eliminate or restrict you from having those rights.

 

[Parttime]

This is appropriate for your friends.

First they came for the AR-15's,
and I did not speak out—
because I did not own one;

Then they came for the hand guns,
and I did not speak out—
because I did not own a hand gun;

Then they came for the Rifles , and
I did not speak out—
because I did not own a rifle;

Then they came for the semi auto
shotguns, and I did not speak out—
because I did not own one;

Then they came for my pump shotgun—
and there was no gun owners left to
speak out for me.”

Thank You Martin Niemöller

 

[Pushrod]

I don't know if this has been touched on yet or not, but tell your friend that we don't live in a democracy, but a constitutional (representative) republic. The diffrerence is that the majority in our republic cannot vote away our individual rights, the minority is protected in a c-republic where as in a democracy they are victems to the whims of the majority. Then remind him that the keeping and bearing of arms are a Constitutionally protected individual right.

 

[Fishguy]

It is hard to argue with someone who blatantly lies to make a "point" as your friend certainly does. A hunter who has had many animal kills but has never been to a range?

In reality, this guy has never actually shot a gun.

Might even invoke Chadwin's law with respect to op.

 

[Storm40]

"Guns are designed only to kill"

I have a theory that antis have the belief that all killing is "bad" in all cases, therefore anything "designed only to kill" must also be "bad" in all cases. I think most of us can see a difference between murder, killing in self-defence and killing animals for food. There is nothing amoral about the last two. The antis choose not to make that distinction, I think.

A point I like to make to antis is that "they" don't have guns and "we" do. They want our guns taken away. To accomplish that goal, they will rely on... people WITH guns. They never see the double irony of that. First, they are tacitly acknowledging that it will take people with guns to take away other people's guns. Second, they will flatly deny the abject truth of needing a gun to defend oneself against armed criminals.*

*for protection against criminals, they'll rely on... other people with guns. So, their problem is not really with guns, it's with trust.

 

[MigraineMan]

I'd love for someone to dig up the one article from the Bumf**k Nowhere Post in 1978 where someone killed someone by bludgeoning them over the head with a fire extinguisher.

Will Chicago do? (recently too)

Murder Trial Begins In Death Of Homeless Man Hit With Fire Extinguisher
July 30, 2013 6:33 AM

Or possibly Moscow, Russia: (kinda graphic video)

Health Spa Resort CCTV Shows Murderer Using Fire Extinguisher to Kill Woman

There are many more ...