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

[ShallNotInfringe]

Are you Fing serious??

Enquiring minds want to know if he is...

 

[Brooklyn]

Because they like to demonize the NRA for using these tactics. Pointing out to them that their side uses the same tactics makes them uncomfortable.



Thanks.

The offer still stands on my end. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable taking him up on his offer to go shooting though, he seems to have a lot of anger issues.

Anger issues? He might stage a gun accident just to prove a point.

Seriously liberals and guns not when I am nearby. Much to emotional . I will deal with moderates but never liberals.

 

[Hopalong]

Are you Fing serious??

Enquiring minds want to know if he is...

As I live and breathe. I'll dig up the tweets if you like.

The offer for lunch was mine. Never heard back.

 

[danb]

As I live and breathe. I'll dig up the tweets if you like.

The offer for lunch was mine. Never heard back.

we need to out Vinny DeMarco as a hypocrite. I am a little skeptical myself. If he shows up at any range within 500 miles we need pictures.

 

[Multifaceted]

we need to out Vinny DeMarco as a hypocrite. I am a little skeptical myself. If he shows up at any range within 500 miles we need pictures.

Yes, a picture would be invaluable. He'd be (or already is) the Mark Kelly of the east.

 

[JAY1234]

Anti-gun folks are that way by choice, just as I am a gun owner by choice and constitutional right. The sad truth is, if I saw one of these rabid anti-gun people in need of firearm support, I would most likely help even though my instinct would be to let the individual needing help handle it the way he/she wants to.

 

[HoCoShooter]

As I live and breathe. I'll dig up the tweets if you like.

The offer for lunch was mine. Never heard back.

I would love to see that. JFC.

 

[Brooklyn]

Anti-gun folks are that way by choice, just as I am a gun owner by choice and constitutional right. The sad truth is, if I saw one of these rabid anti-gun people in need of firearm support, I would most likely help even though my instinct would be to let the individual needing help handle it the way he/she wants to.

Use of force in defense of a third party is problematic enough without having a potentially hostile or non cooperating witness. Be especially careful in domestic violence situations.

This is not a joke. You have a good chance of going to jail for someone who will thank you by helping the prosecution. REALLY any hesitation on stand when asked about "justified fear of life " or "was there another way " will exploited in full.

You are not a police officer and you have no duty to act. If the law was less hostile then maybe, but make no mistake --you will be crucified and your 'victim' will do the talk show circuit...

That is all.

 

[dblas]

The thing is that Vinny DeMarco offered to take me shooting with some of his gun control friends. He wanted to show off his new AR!

I was speechless.

Link??

 

[Hopalong]

Link??

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.

 

[Merlin]

...simply point out to them that:

1. The NRA is not the only organization (or individual) spending millions of dollars politicking in the gun control arena. I particular, point out to them that Michael Bloomberg alone has dropped $10 million or more on each of several ad campaigns. How many billionaires does the gun rights lobby have working for it?

2. The Brady Campaign and other gun control organizations are every bit the "obstructionist organization" that the NRA is. They consistently block any pro-gun legislation that they can and always provide supporting briefs in gun control court cases.

3. Politicians are at least as afraid of Michael Bloomberg as they are of the NRA. In particular, point out how Mayor Mike has started influencing Democratic elections to get pro-gun moderates replaced with hard-line gun control fanatics.

4. Since 2008, the gun control debate is a civil right debate, whether they agree with it or not. For particular effect, point out to them that ownership of the very guns most used to commit gun violence in the country are specifically protected under Heller.

5. Guns are not responsible for gun violence. People are. The people illegally buying and selling guns to criminals, the people who pull the trigger, and the people we elect who let the first two groups of people walk free.

I've been having some pretty interesting conversations with gun control folks, and these themes have consistently come up. They so completely buy what they see on the evening news that they don't even question it even more. Let's rattle some of their notions.

How do you fight a group of people that relies on made up facts with real facts?

 

[iH8DemLibz]

I don't think there is a way to get through to true-blue, anti-gun liberal democrats.

I stood there in amazement when my daughter-in-law explained to me that rape is some kind 50 step process.

She said she would not drop the hammer on some guy unless he was on step 48.5

That's like his junk being an 1/8 of an inch from her junk. WTF???

It finally hit me that that is what we are up against.

No guns in the hands of private citizens for any reason. That is their goal.

I will not talk to these idiots anymore. The time for talk has come and gone. All the time I spent in Annapolis was one bitter pill to swallow.

They have made their intentions quite clear.

Now it's time to crush them.

 

[Hopalong]

I will not talk to these idiots anymore. The time for talk has come and gone. All the time I spent in Annapolis was one bitter pill to swallow.

They have made their intentions quite clear.

Now it's time to crush them.

That's exactly what they say about us.

Which is exactly why we should be the ones reaching out to them whenever we can.

If we won't work with them to find a solution to our gun violence problem, they'll do it on their own, and I don't think that anyone here wants that.

At the end of the day, as long as both sides of this debate are serious about reducing gun violence, they need to keep talking. Once they stop talking...it's all just party politics.

Say what you will about gun control folks wanting to disarm the public; it may well be true for top leadership, but rank-and-file gun control folks are far more reasonable and willing to have a rational conversation. It's them that we need to be engaging whenever we can.


In hindsight, I wish I had titled this post differently. I don't actually like pissing off gun control folks, but I do enjoy making them question things.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

The onslaught that is being brought to bear against us is overwhelming in nature and you want to "talk-it-out".

I watch 2-3 hours of FOX and 1 hour of MSNBC per day. MSNBC lobs one shell after another at us and they will continue to do so. I just watched Chris Mathews equate Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's) with HANDGUNS. It's pure insanity and it's relentless.

I really do see our government, in the not so distant future, taking our guns as a matter of public safety or national security or some other contrived, ******** reason.

I know you are high up on the food chain within this organization and pro-gun drive, but please wake-up and smell the gunpowder.

Speaking of gunpowder, Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC has been talking about tightening the restrictions on black and smokeless reloading powders. Talking about adding Chemical Tracers. Taggants. Etc.

They are not interested in "talking" to us about anything. They want us gone. Why is it that you and others insist on "talking" to them?

We don't have a "gun" violence problem. We have a "violence" problem. The tool must be taken out of the equation. We don't need gun control. We need criminal control. Rapist control. Arsonist control. All manner of gang/little thugs control.

I'm glad I have a healthy heart. Otherwise I would not be able to read some of the stuff on this board.

Your turn.

 

[Brooklyn]

That's exactly what they say about us.

Which is exactly why we should be the ones reaching out to them whenever we can.

If we won't work with them to find a solution to our gun violence problem, they'll do it on their own, and I don't think that anyone here wants that.

At the end of the day, as long as both sides of this debate are serious about reducing gun violence, they need to keep talking. Once they stop talking...it's all just party politics.

Say what you will about gun control folks wanting to disarm the public; it may well be true for top leadership, but rank-and-file gun control folks are far more reasonable and willing to have a rational conversation. It's them that we need to be engaging whenever we can.


In hindsight, I wish I had titled this post differently. I don't actually like pissing off gun control folks, but I do enjoy making them question things.

Maybe we could start by not calling it gun violence, since that concedes the point.

Could be gang violence. Or criminal violence,,but no Orwell counsels otherwise so we get gun violence. You can't win that argument and that's the point.

Start calling it gang violence and see how fast they deny the problem and blame guns...

That is part of a strategy.. It is perfectly reasonable to stop taking to people that deny the existence of gang violence ....

 

[PhoenixRizing]

Anti-gunners are a different breed. It's like their looking for a cause. Set the criminals free we can't trust the police. Why do you need to hunt when you can get all the food you need in the store's. Why do you need a gun to protect yourself when there is a police force to protect you. You cannot change their minds by talking to them but we need to have a dialog with them because of the politicians. Just my opinion.

If it weren't so sad it might be funny. The antis probably do think this way and don't even realize the 2 bolded sentences are seemingly mutually exclusive.

 

[Publius]

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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.

 

[Hopalong]

I really do see our government, in the not so distant future, taking our guns as a matter of public safety or national security or some other contrived, ******** reason.

I can see that potentially happening too. Fortunately, I'm not talking to the anti-gun government zealots who would do that, I'm talking to the people who elect them. I find them to be far less zealous.

I know you are high up on the food chain within this organization and pro-gun drive, but please wake-up and smell the gunpowder.

Actually, I'm just a rank and file member with a big mouth and a penchant for stirring the pot. These conversations are completely independent of MSI or any other organization, and the views I publicly discuss are not necessarily theirs.

But I am awake and I have smelled the gunpowder. I can see the difference between the people driving the national, corporate media bombardment that you described and the average people like us on the other side of the debate. We can't reasonably influence the former, but we can certainly influence the latter.

They are not interested in "talking" to us about anything. They want us gone. Why is it that you and others insist on "talking" to them?

How would you know. Have you tried? I find many of them more than willing to talk as long as you keep it rational and friendly.

We don't have a "gun" violence problem. We have a "violence" problem. The tool must be taken out of the equation. We don't need gun control. We need criminal control. Rapist control. Arsonist control. All manner of gang/little thugs control.

Maybe we could start by not calling it gun violence, since that concedes the point.

Here I know I will catch some flak. I actually prefer the term gun violence because it lets me steer the conversation away from the guns and back to the violent people using them. You cannot have violence without people. Gun violence is just one type of violent act, and one that requires certain specific measures in order to help combat. (Plus, things like fixing NICS, prosecuting those who illegally buy/sell guns, etc. don't really apply to rape, arson, etc.)

Again, this is my opinion on the matter and I choose it specifically to assist in my conversations. I'm not saying that anyone else should adopt it.

I'm glad I have a healthy heart. Otherwise I would not be able to read some of the stuff on this board.

Amen to that.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

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?

 

[Hopalong]

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?

I normally don't like the cut/paste/quote method, but it does make addressing individual points so much easier.

As for the taste in your mouth, I've found that good vodka will clean out even the most putrid of tastes. Assuming you don't drink so much that you end up throwing up again....