What to do when attacked for pro-2nd Amendment views

While I completely understand that there may be liberals who strongly support the 2nd Amendment, I often wonder who they can possibly find to vote for when election time rolls around. How many truly liberal candidates openly support gun rights? Very few, because it distances themselves from their core constituency. How many "liberals" are "single issue" voters, refusing to vote for anyone who is anti-gun? Again, I'd venture to say, from personal experience anyway, very few. Thus, a liberal who is "anti gun control" very often ends up voting for the candidate most likely to be pro-gun control, thus still doing damage to our cause while claiming otherwise, at least in my opinion and from what I have observed

Very true, Davek1977. Not a lot of candidates out there I like period, regardless of party. Not all of us liberals are fans of Clinton and personally I'm pretty tired of all the Bushes and Clintons. Of course there's no one in the Republican party that I'd meet with anything beyond gales of laughter. I suppose Christie is the closest one.

I used to like McCain before he got desperate for the White House. It looked like he realized his "window" was closing and he went completely nuts. Used to be that he was his own man, did what he thought was right and didn't care if the party flaks agreed with it or not. The whole Palin debacle pretty much flushed any chance he might have had down the crapper.

The only potential candidate I see out there that I like is Warren, and she probably won't run. I don't know what she thinks of guns...probably not in favor of them but that's just a guess. The banking industry would keep her busy for two full terms though!

One thing you do tend to notice is that there aren't many one-issue antis out there. If you threaten to take my guns I'll turn out to fight it, you can bet on that. But the antis have no skin in the game, mostly. They will usually vote on other issues (eg reproductive rights, gay rights, foreign policy).

There are still numerous pro-gun Democrats. I'm hoping MT governor Brian Schweitzer runs in 2016. http://www.ontheissues.org/governor/Brian_Schweitzer_Gun_Control.htm

Davek1977 said:

While I completely understand that there may be liberals who strongly support the 2nd Amendment, I often wonder who they can possibly find to vote for when election time rolls around. How many truly liberal candidates openly support gun rights? Very few, because it distances themselves from their core constituency. How many "liberals" are "single issue" voters, refusing to vote for anyone who is anti-gun? Again, I'd venture to say, from personal experience anyway, very few. Thus, a liberal who is "anti gun control" very often ends up voting for the candidate most likely to be pro-gun control, thus still doing damage to our cause while claiming otherwise, at least in my opinion and from what I have observed

Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^ This ^^^^^^^^
I only know one liberal that is pro gun and he always votes for the gun grabbers.

I purchased a NRA membership for one of my anti-gun liberal cousins several years ago. It back fired when he purchased a membership for me to the ACLU.....I'll never give another pro gun membership to a liberal again.

Click to expand...

You made the right choice.

Question to all my fellow 2nd Amendment advocates: Since when did it become illegal to have anti-gun viewpoints?? Or to express them in public??

Getting someone on a pro-gun mailing list or any political advocacy mailing list that they don't want to be on borders on harassment. Maybe not legally, but certainly in spirit. And it's a spirit I don't want any part of. And you end up making the NRA an unwitting party to your harassment.

I've been irritated when I get unwanted material from political parties/movements I don't want any part of. If I found out that I was getting this material as a mild form of intimidation from people who had singled me out as a political adversary, there would be trouble. Again, it doesn't matter if it's illegal or not. The "it's not illegal, therefore it's OK" mentality doesn't cut it with me.

If someone has to resort to this sort of tactic to win an argument, maybe they should brush up on their debating skills.

Jim NE makes a good point. In my own case it's pretty rare that I'm 'attacked' for my views. If someone is strongly anti-gun they're probably not going to be a super close friend, simply because it's unlikely that I'll have enough else in common to make up for it. But it can happen. It's like religion in a way- we can have very strong views on one issue without it bleeding over into other areas. If that happens with the issue of guns and I'm still close to that person it's because they respect me enough and are open minded enough to know they won't change my mind. To be honest it's probably going to be a woman I'm dating...a pretty face is about the only reason I'll put up much.

But if I'm attacked for whatever reason I'll usually just politely tell them they're welcome to their opinion and ignore them. If they persist or want to debate it they're in for trouble! I'm not mean about it but I've done my homework. If their only reasons are emotional they'll get demolished.

The 'antis' I most respect are the ones honest enough to call for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. I disagree with them but at least they acknowledge the law of the land. At least with that person I respect their integrity.

For younger, open minded folks I have a secret tactic that rarely fails: I offer to take them shooting! That will change some folk's minds. There's a young guy I worked with that was fairly anti-gun until he agreed to go to the range with me. Long story short he was amazed at how much fun it was. Once he realized he liked guns and loved to shoot he started to question the line of bull he'd been fed by his parents and teachers (note- he's a 19 year old black kid, son of 1st gen immigrants, professional types). Now he's a pretty hardcore pro-gun guy!

Not every anti is a true believer. Some have just never had the pro gun case laid out to them in an objective, rational way.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Liberals-find-comfort-level-in-NPR-of-gun-clubs-5107330.php

There are out there blazingly liberal people who also support gun rights. The San Francisco Chronicle did a good writeup on one such organization a few days ago.

My problem is I do not do well in FTF debates, and I know it, so I shut up in that kind of encounter, perhaps offering to take them shooting. But that depends on the person with whom I'm dealing.

Besides, as somebody pointed out, "You can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

There are a number of sources for succinct point-by-point rebuttals to the hogwash antis chant, especially with respect to their phony statistics. The NRA did an article on this a couple of years ago, but I haven't seen one since. I'm sure somebody here can dig up others.

But one of my favorites is from Jeff Cooper, courtesy of the Buckeye State gun site:

"One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure — and in some cases I have — that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy."

Click to expand...

More:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/quotations-of-jeff-cooper

I personally think that it will take nothing short of one good tyranny or one good mugging to change some peoples' minds.

Terry, 230RN

KUSA said:

You took it too seriously. You aren't going to change the mind of the die hard lib so just piss them off.

Click to expand...

Well I'm certainly glad your view is the minority...

BTW, is that how you move thru life? Don't agree with another point of view so you just "piss them off"? Really, and how is that working out for you?

My preference is to try to talk them into a little range time. Another poster above suggested a 10-22 and brick of shells. I agree completely, the choice of firearm may vary from time to time and it's good to have an AR in the trunk with a hundred rounds so they can find out how much fun those evil guns can be... You won't be likely to convert an anti gunner in one outing but taking small steps like this is certainly better than needless willful dickery...

KUSA said:

^^^^^^^^ This ^^^^^^^^
I only know one liberal that is pro gun and he always votes for the gun grabbers.

Click to expand...

"No Confidence" gets many of my votes. The last Liberal I've seen on a ballot was Jon Huntsman and his position on how much interferance folks should endure in their private lives has increased. Most of the RKBA backing Liberals/Lefties I know - myself included - see individual defense as a Ninth Amendment right as court cases have absolved the State from being concerned with an individual's safety. I draw a harder line on firearms than many I know.

When we get the option to vote for anti-Authoritarian candidates, we should do so. When I have to choose between someone who wants to sign an AWB and someone who HAS signed one, 'No Confidence' is the only vote that makes sense unless you have another candidate who won't sign away your rights to make way for Corporate or Government control.

Either explaining that all rights are equally important as well as important to be shared equally amongst everyone who is residing here or taking someone shooting is the best way to show them why firearms rights are important and also how much fun shooting is to do. Ideally, both.

ErikO said:

When I have to choose between someone who wants to sign an AWB and someone who HAS signed one, 'No Confidence' is the only vote that makes sense unless you have another candidate who won't sign away your rights to make way for Corporate or Government control.

Click to expand...

Exactly. That was the case in the last election.
I had no good choice, only two bad ones.
It's like choosing which toilet to drown in.

i always put in real terms, real situations where a gun in the hands of a competent person can make a difference. one close to home story was about an incident that took place less than ten miles from where i lived--a home invasion where the perps used a fake weapon. they beat the husband left him for dead (he escaped), the wife was sodomized and strangled, their two teen daughters were tied to their beds, doused with gas and lite up. the cops were outside as the house burned down.

would all this have happened if someone in the house could have taken an action with a real weapon?

Anyone who will "attack" another verbally or physically over a different point of view is completely beyond convincing. You can present all the facts, polls, statistics, and history lessons that you want and it will get you nowhere. Best to just walk away at that point.

I've read all the comments and agree with most. If the person is a full blown anti, who cares if they think you're a blowhard, they already think way worse anyway, I say piss them off. If their a fence sitter take them shooting, go out of your way to do this, a 10/22 and a couple hundred rounds, that's all it takes. So I say its all about know your crowd. I have done some political stuff and ended up with a Obama sign in my front yard after the election, and yet I still work to change his mind, he's a fence sitter, he just doesn't know it, its about free stuff for him, if the government gave out free guns and ammo, he'd be on our side. Know your audience........

^

...he's a fence sitter, he just doesn't know it, its about free stuff for him, if the government gave out free guns and ammo, he'd be on our side. Know your audience........

Click to expand...

Hilarious, but sharp around the edges. Bread and circuses and guns and ammo, doncha know?

There are some who take a stand and can`t be moved...........You think one way they another. It`s a wash! Move on.

I used to argue with them but seemingly to no avail. Now I tell them <deleted> and then send another contribution to NRA-ILA.

TooTaxed said:

It is irritating when anti-gun people who have not bothered to verify bad statistics fed to them by anti-gun sources attack me for my pro-2nd Amendment stance! So, assuming the NRA needs to publicise the truth more, when I return home I make a donation to the NRA of $25 to $100, depending on the insolence of the encounter.

Now, here's the trick! I make the donation in the name of the anti-gun person with their address, explaining to the NRA and requesting they send a letter thanking them for the donation!

Click to expand...

Realistically the only thing one can do it recruit new members into shooting sports. The liberals do not want to listen to conservatives and conservatives do not want to listen to liberals. There is no constructive criticism or communication with those of opposite point of view and folks hang around and exchange views with those that think like themselves. That is why the country made of 50 little ones is failing.

Realistically the only thing one can do it recruit new members into shooting sports. The liberals do not want to listen to conservatives and conservatives do not want to listen to liberals. There is no constructive criticism or communication with those of opposite point of view and folks hang around and exchange views with those that think like themselves. That is why the country made of 50 little ones is failing.

Click to expand...

I've found a 10/22, a couple spare magazines, and 100 rounds to be very effective at bringing many people in.
You don't want to use too much ammo. A hundred rounds is just about the right amount to switch off with them and maybe let them shoot sixty rounds or so... to get them hooked. Then you're out of ammo all the sudden. If they want to shoot again (and they often do) then they'll have to come with you next Saturday.

A lot of what's expressed as anti-gun views comes from inexperience, both with guns and with gun people.

It took years and a change of email addresses to get off all the kill the babies, save the whales, bunny huggers and send money to help the gay's groups that had connections with the ACLU. I have never understood how people that are "bunny huggers" can be pro abortion but it seems like they all are. Needless to say I never purchased another NRA or other pro gun membership to a liberal again.

Click to expand...

I understand how it might be a waste of money, better spent on ammo, however being distracted by all of the other things that you don't like about someone is counterproductive. Stay focused on the disagreement at hand.

Even better point out that pro-gun people come from every background and that even his/her party choice have their own website :http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=10853

I think that those who run in very conservative circles have trouble with this concept, but those of us who are more libertarian or liberal or who have friends on both sides of the aisle know it to be true.

Click to expand...

I disagree. That is a misperception as well. The focus on the issue is pertinent to promote change in real people. Media will spin both ways, don't by the hype.

I only grabbed a few of these examples and I saw others. I did not due so to single out arguments and just as well could have referred to many. My purpose was only in making the point on the political polarizing views and how distractive and destructive they can be.

From where I am standing this is not a place for polarizing opinions of another's political views or ones perception thereof and the like is a stumbling block to progress. Real progress can be made with a stand on 2A by everyone who supports it and the use of political preferences should only be used to say our "political preferences are different but on 2A we are untied". Anything else is useless and counterproductive IMO.

Just because washing is, doesn't mean we have to be. I am still looking for another method myself to promote and extend 2A rights. Joining a few forums and discussions can be and has been informative and enlightening at times. If it we're to descend into the likes of Washington like behavior, I would find it useless and would no longer find it rewarding. Maybe some Anti drops by and sees a united stance and takes a hint. If so I hope it is because these discussions are fruitful. If an anti stops in and reads something else it will only reinforce their belief that 2A is the cause of chaos itself IMO.

This place and this time is as good as any to join for the sake of what we all support

If trying in a friendly way to convince the "attackers" that guns are not the problem does nothing for them, they're hopeless. Way too many fools have fallen for the nonstop anti-gun nonsense and cannot be convinced otherwise. If you choose to be nice to the idiots who are not nice to you, so be it. Being nice is not in their game plan. You're better off to try a different approach...tell them they should stick to using their distress whistles. Let them know that their ignorance makes buying ammo and firearms easier for those of us who do choose to protect ourselves and hunt.

Here is the cold logic of the debate:

We fumble around with facts, figures, anecdotes, reason, and the Constitutional arguments.

Antis want what they want because they want it.

Their arrogance supersedes any notion of "discussion" or reasonable "debate".

Wreck-n-Crew said:

From where I am standing this is not a place for polarizing opinions of another's political views or ones perception thereof and the like is a stumbling block to progress. Real progress can be made with a stand on 2A by everyone who supports it and the use of political preferences should only be used to say our "political preferences are different but on 2A we are untied". Anything else is useless and counterproductive IMO.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I wish we could get to that point. But you have to admit that there are those people who start in with the "it's all them damn liberals" argument, even though they voted for a guy who'd signed a assault weapons ban in Massachusetts for president. I don't know if it's denial, hypocrisy, or ignorance. But we all need to get past it.

One tactic to use in person is to adopt the "Progressive's" methods.

Practice your liberal sneer, and rehearse phrases like, "Well YOU would think like that; most supporters of dictatorships do."

"It really takes a small minded person to believe such obvious nonsense."

"Surveys show that most of the people who support gun control also support one party rule and government control of the press."

"Sure we can ban guns, but no intelligent person believes a ban would work unless we also destroy all civil liberties and go in for mass searches and summary executions; but of course you would back those also."

"You claim to want "reasonable" gun laws. What exactly do you mean by that? Do you want only the rich and influential to be able to defend themselves?"

"Why do you want those who can't afford private guards to be killed?" Sneer. "But then you elitists think like that, don't you?"

"Sure you can trust the government to control guns. They already control your TV, your newspapers, your phone calls, your money and your transportation. They put spy cameras everywhere, and you say they can be trusted and want more of that?"

Nasty? Sure. But those are the tactics they use against us.

Jim

"No Confidence" gets many of my votes. The last Liberal I've seen on a ballot was Jon Huntsman and his position on how much interferance folks should endure in their private lives has increased. Most of the RKBA backing Liberals/Lefties I know - myself included - see individual defense as a Ninth Amendment right as court cases have absolved the State from being concerned with an individual's safety. I draw a harder line on firearms than many I know.

Click to expand...

Jon "My dog has created more shovel-ready jobs than Obama" Huntsman a liberal?