Responding to a (libtard) post

noway2

noway2

Senior Member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
21,416
Location
Onboard the mothership
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
This morning in the Chatham County chatlist, one undoubtedly well meaning but seriously misguided individual posted the following statement:
Who is planning a rally or march in PIttsboro or Siler City for students and others who support new gun control measures? I know massive rallies will be held in bigger cities but I'd like to support my community as well.
Click to expand...

I have a real desire to respond but having a hard time coming up with anything that would be effective and thought I would ask the community if they would like to help crowd source a response. Obviously it is highly unlikely that this individual will change their views, but this doesn't mean that there aren't others out there.

I am thinking of something along the following, but would like to open it up to discussion:

It should be obvious that the answer is not more gun control / restrictions on the general populace. Not one of the proposed BS measures that the "liberals and progressives" perpetually pull out of their collective backsides every time there is an event like this would do a thing to stop a mass murderer.

The idea that a "ban" on the AR15 platform, which seems to be the current focus, would have any effect is at best ludicrous, and more than likely unconstitutional despite what the activist judges in leftist realms claim. As it is one of, if not the, most popular rifle used by civilians, including police, for defense of self and others a ban would be a prohibition on a class of arms that has been overwhelmingly chosen by Americans for self defense, and hence unconstitutional.

Looking at the argument from the other side, it is also obvious that evil people choose soft targets where they know they can cause a large amount of carnage with little to no resistance. It is way past time to put an end to the idiotic "gun free zones" and to recognize that such "restrictions" are creating hunting grounds where children are the prey.

Therefore if anyone desires to "march in support of our students", they should be marching on the state capitol demanding that we put an end to the gun free zones and implement real security measures in our schools.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I'd leave it alone. Very rarely is a convert made through an interwebz post. Usually degenerates to a whole bunch of antis trying to shout down the pro 2a guy (or gal).
Face to face, one on one is where I try...it's usually much more civil and people tend to listen better.
But, you do what you feel you must...
 
draco88 said:
Personally, I'd leave it alone. Very rarely is a convert made through an interwebz post. Usually degenerates to a whole bunch of antis trying to shout down the pro 2a guy (or gal).
Face to face, one on one is where I try...it's usually much more civil and people tend to listen better.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but is it wise to allow them to control the entire dialog? Would that not only help perpetuate the image that the People overwhelmingly support their end goal?
 
Sincerely extend an invitation to a shooting competition that includes AR style rifles. Often, a first hand look at responsible recreational use of such an evil device will put things in perspective.

Imagine thus:

All you ever heard about baseball bats involved heads getting bashed in.
Then, through a series of wrong turns, you ended up at a baseball game and witnessed entire families having fun with that evil baseball bat.

The left has an agenda, as does the right.
Exposure and inclusion is what wins hearts, minds and votes.
 
Last edited:
It should be obvious that the answer is not more gun control / restrictions on the general populace. Not one of the proposed "common sense" measures that are proposed every time there is an event like this would do a thing to stop a mass murderer. If existing laws that should have stopped the Parkland shooter were not enforced, how do new laws help?

The idea that a "ban" on the AR15 platform, which seems to be the current focus, would have any effect is at best short-sighted, and more than likely unconstitutional despite what the activist judges in leftist realms claim. Drugs are banned, have they gone away? As the AR15 is one of, if not the, most popular rifles used by civilians, including police, for defense of self and others, a ban would be a prohibition on a class of arms that has been overwhelmingly chosen by Americans for self defense, and hence unconstitutional. Evil is not fought by legislation of the good.

Looking at the argument from the other side, it is also obvious that evil people choose soft targets where they know they can cause a large amount of carnage with little to no resistance. It is way past time to put an end to the idiotic "gun free zones" and to recognize that such "restrictions" are creating hunting grounds where children are the prey.

Therefore if anyone desires to "march in support of our students", they should be marching on the state capitol demanding that we put an end to the gun free zones and implement real security measures in our schools.

(Just some thoughts / suggestions highlighted.)
 
Last edited:
noway2 said:
This morning in the Chatham County chatlist, one undoubtedly well meaning but seriously misguided individual posted the following statement:


I have a real desire to respond but having a hard time coming up with anything that would be effective and thought I would ask the community if they would like to help crowd source a response. Obviously it is highly unlikely that this individual will change their views, but this doesn't mean that there aren't others out there.

I am thinking of something along the following, but would like to open it up to discussion:

It should be obvious that the answer is not more gun control / restrictions on the general populace. Not one of the proposed BS measures that the "liberals and progressives" perpetually pull out of their collective backsides every time there is an event like this would do a thing to stop a mass murderer.

The idea that a "ban" on the AR15 platform, which seems to be the current focus, would have any effect is at best ludicrous, and more than likely unconstitutional despite what the activist judges in leftist realms claim. As it is one of, if not the, most popular rifle used by civilians, including police, for defense of self and others a ban would be a prohibition on a class of arms that has been overwhelmingly chosen by Americans for self defense, and hence unconstitutional.

Looking at the argument from the other side, it is also obvious that evil people choose soft targets where they know they can cause a large amount of carnage with little to no resistance. It is way past time to put an end to the idiotic "gun free zones" and to recognize that such "restrictions" are creating hunting grounds where children are the prey.

Therefore if anyone desires to "march in support of our students", they should be marching on the state capitol demanding that we put an end to the gun free zones and implement real security measures in our schools.
Click to expand...

Go for it, but take out the "BS" and "liberals and progressives" attacks, and just make your points. When you blatantly call names and attack right out of the gate you are likely to shut down any discussion.
 
CZfool68 said:
Go for it, but take out the "BS" and "liberals and progressives" attacks, and just make your points. When you blatantly call names and attack right out of the gate you are likely to shut down any discussion.
Click to expand...
Good points, I agree. I also like the idea that @Slacker proposes of offering an invitation to shooter training and shooting competition events. Undoubtedly much of the fear is born of ignorance, for which there is a cure.
 
When has an law prevented a person who wanted to disobey it and do the deed. Name one?

A law only puts penalties in place when that law is broken. The deed is still done.
 
Last edited:
rdinatal said:
When has an law prevented a person who wanted to disobey it and do the deed. Name one?

A law only puts penalties in place when that law is broken. The deed is still done.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree. Under a different name I recently posted a similar statement on a regressive blog site. In short they do believe that legislation via "regulation" does in fact prevent and make people safer citing things like building codes and car safety regulations. They equate it to things like restrictions on serving obviously intoxicated people in restaurants and open container in vehicle laws as "preventing" drunk driving and then extend this to the idea that limiting firing rates and bullet capacity will reduce harm, now citing Australia as an example. These stupid fokkers really do believe this nonsense.
 
Slacker said:
Sincerely extend an invitation to a shooting competition that includes AR style rifles. Often, a first hand look at responsible recreational use of such an evil device will put things in perspective.

Imagine thus:

All you ever heard about baseball bats involved heads getting bashed in.
Then, through a series of wrong turns, you ended up at a baseball game and witnessed entire families having fun with that evil baseball bat.

The left has an agenda, as does the right.
Exposure and inclusion is what wins hearts, minds and votes.
Click to expand...

This guy knows what's up. If you feel you must do something - show up, offer up your time/resources to educate people on the different types of guns, what they do, etc. Take them to the range and let them rattle off a few rounds. Signs, facebook posts, and MEME's aren't doing anything to change people's minds.
 
rdinatal said:
When has an law prevented a person who wanted to disobey it and do the deed. Name one?

A law only puts penalties in place when that law is broken. The deed is still done.
Click to expand...
Billions of times. I don't know how many times I didn't knock someones lights out because it was illegal to do so.
 
Honestly there isn't much to work with to create a cogent response to this statement. What kind of gun control measures would be a starting point but you don't have that.

The quoted text is nothing more than an emotional statement wanting to support a protest. Without anything to address you are left with merely saying protests are stupid.
 
How about asking what the person is trying to do - achieve something specific (and why) or just "participate" in something.
 
Chdamn said:
Honestly there isn't much to work with to create a cogent response to this statement. What kind of gun control measures would be a starting point but you don't have that.

The quoted text is nothing more than an emotional statement wanting to support a protest. Without anything to address you are left with merely saying protests are stupid.
Click to expand...
That's true. The statement was made to a daily mailing list and it is tacitly supporting the idea of "gun control" and protesting the fact that legislatures won't take up the task. The current vector of attack seems to be to reinstate an "assault weapon" ban with the AR15 being the primary target. As it is a distributed mailing list, the audience isn't just the person making the statement, but its more of an open letter to the fence sitters and for that reason I agree with the above posts that it is necessary to avoid personal attacks that will shut down the conversation. Personally, I think these student "protests" are genuinely stupid and the result of indoctrination and programming. I also realize that there are plenty of idiot "liberals" whose minds are made up, if only because it is part of their chosen party's platform. I find it exceedingly frustrated that the public focus is being intentionally reduced by the media to the only answer being gun control restrictions.

Mainly I am trying to present an alternative to the drivel they're getting from mass media and suggest that if they need to prostest that something be done, that it be a protest to put an end to the stupid gun free zones. In any case, thanks to the input from several of the members here, who I borrowed from here is what I came up with:
I am writing in response to the post by Shannon regarding supporting student protests of the recent mass shooting event in Florida.

It should be obvious that the answer is not more gun control or restrictions being placed upon the general populace. If one takes an honest and hard look at the facts, not one of the proposed "common sense" measures that are put forth every time there is an event like this would do a thing to stop a mass murderer. If existing laws which, had they been enforced, would have stopped the Parkland shooter, new additional laws wont be any more effective at anything other than keeping weapons out of responsible people's hands.

The idea that a "ban" on the AR15 platform, which seems to be the current focus, would have any effect is at best short-sighted, and more than likely unconstitutional despite what activist judges in predominantly leftist realms claim. Take for example, drugs. Despite being banned have they gone away? No, not at all. Nor are they difficult to obtain as demonstrated by this alleged opioid crisis that we hear about daily. As the AR15 is one of, if not the, most popular rifles used by civilians, including police, for defense of self and others a ban would be a prohibition on a class of arms that has been overwhelmingly chosen by Americans for self defense and other lawful purposes including target shooting and hunting, and hence would be unconstitutional. Evil is not fought by legislation of the good. I would also like to make it clear that the AR15 is not a weapon of war, is it not a machine gun, it is not an assault rifle, it is not any more dangerous than a handgun, a shotgun, or standard 'hunting' rifle and it most certainly wasn't designed for the sole purposes of killing lots of people very fast despite the media's fearful claims. There is also nothing about it that should be scary.

Looking at the argument from the other side, it is also obvious that evil people choose soft targets where they know they can cause a large amount of carnage with little to no resistance. It is way past time to put an end to the idiotic notion of "gun free zones" as safe havens and to recognize that such restrictions are creating hunting grounds where children are the prey. Therefore if anyone desires to "march in support of our students", they should be marching on the state capitol demanding that we put an end to the gun free zones and implement real security measures in our schools. Had that shooter been prevented from entering the building or had some of those faculty been able to do more than attempt to shield students with their bodies, more people would very likely be alive today.

I realize that there are a lot of people whose only exposure to guns is their false depiction from Hollywood and what they hear about on the nightly news and I would extend an invitation for them to attend a shooting competition that includes AR style rifles as a way to gain first hand experience of safe, responsible, recreational use that will dispel the notion that they are an "evil" device. Alternatively, I would encourage you to take a training class and educate yourself about firearms and and how to safely handle and shoot them. There are several different options and instructors to choose from, including classes for women only. One that I would recommend, based upon personal experience, would be (redacted to avoid advertising) run by (redacted). Here is a list of classes that they offer: link Most of these will include both class room and hands on training.
Click to expand...
 
noway2 said:
That's true. The statement was made to a daily mailing list and it is tacitly supporting the idea of "gun control" and protesting the fact that legislatures won't take up the task. The current vector of attack seems to be to reinstate an "assault weapon" ban with the AR15 being the primary target. As it is a distributed mailing list, the audience isn't just the person making the statement, but its more of an open letter to the fence sitters and for that reason I agree with the above posts that it is necessary to avoid personal attacks that will shut down the conversation. Personally, I think these student "protests" are genuinely stupid and the result of indoctrination and programming. I also realize that there are plenty of idiot "liberals" whose minds are made up, if only because it is part of their chosen party's platform. I find it exceedingly frustrated that the public focus is being intentionally reduced by the media to the only answer being gun control restrictions.

Mainly I am trying to present an alternative to the drivel they're getting from mass media and suggest that if they need to prostest that something be done, that it be a protest to put an end to the stupid gun free zones. In any case, thanks to the input from several of the members here, who I borrowed from here is what I came up with:
Click to expand...

Very well stated.
 
noway2 said:
That may be true, but is it wise to allow them to control the entire dialog? Would that not only help perpetuate the image that the People overwhelmingly support their end goal?
Click to expand...

You have a point.

And the answer, as always, MUST be consistent, persistent, application of the TRUTH, with no grandiose bullsh*tting to fluff it up.

You may not have any credibility with people such as these no matter what you do, but in the end it's not really THEM you have to be concerned about...it's the vast majority of fence-sitters on the sidelines. You lie, you bullsh*t, you exaggerate...and you lose your own credibility...and our cause will, in turn, suffer.

If outsiders must look at both sides and make up their minds, let it be demonstrated to them which side has honesty, integrity, and honor on it.

We MUST be the calm in the storm. We MUST be the voice of reason. We MUST be honest and forthright.

And, of course, we MUST be vigilant.
 
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/06/6-reasons-right-wing-friend-isnt-coming-side-gun-control/

Good read. Closing words:

I find it hard to have an honest and vulnerable conversation about a deeply held right when the starting point is often challenging my motives while coming from a place of ignorance on firearms. If youā€™re really looking to win over your gun-loving friend, try reading up on firearms, dumping anti-NRA talking points, and assume he or she is equally committed to preventing these evil acts.
 
I thought the Chuck Norris article thread presented the most logical answer to the goal these "individuals" claim to support. Let's protect our children the way our politicians and celebrities are protected. Enough of the gun free shooting ranges our schools have been made.
gun-free.jpg
 
draco88 said:
Personally, I'd leave it alone. Very rarely is a convert made through an interwebz post. Usually degenerates to a whole bunch of antis trying to shout down the pro 2a guy (or gal).
Face to face, one on one is where I try...it's usually much more civil and people tend to listen better.
But, you do what you feel you must...
Click to expand...


......hard to have a "conversation" with morons. Its nothing more than a liberal term for "we are coming after your guns again"
 
On a certain regressive blog site I simply asked how laws are going to be a deterrent against a mass murder who has resigned themselves to either: getting killed in the act, life in prison, being executed, or killing themselves?

OMG, can you say triggered! We are talking stark raving mad. Theyā€™re besides themselves at their lack of power to push their perceived solution / agenda.
 
Read the OPs response in the chatlist this AM, it was well written.
 
So far, I received one personal reply to my post on the chat list this morning. The reply stated:
In response to your contention that more gun control will not help, I offer the following graphic. I'm sorry it's so small and hard to read, and I hope you'll be able to enlarge it enough to see what it says. Bottom line: states with more gun control measures have many fewer gun deaths.
Click to expand...
and included a link to a chart by the National Journal (easy enough to Google, but trying to find it gives a lot of 404 errors - I wonder why). Anyway here was my reply:

I'm sorry but I am unable to enlarge the graphic large enough to read it and attempting to do so blurs it too much to make out any of the text. However, I am pretty certain it is the diagram from the National Journal article. While on the surface the statement "states with more gun control measures have many fewer gun deaths" is factually true, it is also misleading because it includes suicide deaths which accounts for almost 2/3rds of the firearm deaths. Back in 2015, Obama referenced this chart and study while trying to sell the idea of gun control laws as an effective means of preventing crime and mass shootings in particular. The problem is that once you remove suicides the correlation between strict gun laws and gun deaths breaks down. In actuality the picture becomes quite murky. For example, DC and Chicago have crime and murder rates that equal some of the worst third world nations on the planet yet have the strictest gun laws while Alaska and (I believe it is) Louisiana have high per capita gun deaths, they have very low murder rates. If anything the correlation appears to more with levels of economic prosperity, at least in my opinion. Then we have states like HI being in the top 10 in terms of gun ownership, yet has some of the strictest laws in the nation.

It is also not as simple as pointing to countries like Australia and England which in theory at least, have pretty much removed guns from the civilian population. It turns out that after passing their confiscation laws that gun crime actually increased from what I've read as did violent crime overall and both of these countries currently have violent crime rates that are higher than the United States.

The situation becomes yet even more complicated when one considers countries like Switzerland which has high gun ownership but low levels of violence as do, or rather I should say did because it is changing with the mass immigration from Africa and the Middle east, the Scandinavian countries. What those countries do have, that is very different than the United States is that they are small, ethnically homogeneous populations with a shared culture. Japan is another example of a country with a very homogeneous population and it has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world, but yet has a very high suicide rate.

I guess the TLDR version of all of this is that the problem is complicated - straight as a pretzel as they say - and it is certainly more encompassing than being just a gun issue. Leah Libresco, who used to write for Five Thirty Eight wrote an interesting study piece that was punished in the Washington Post. In it she started out wanting to prove that gun control was the answer to gun deaths, including suicide, but her research proved otherwise. Here is a link to that piece (or you can google it if you prefer to avoid clicking email links. "leah libresco gun deaths" puts it as the top hit for me: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.098ceb29d60a
 
Last edited:
Havent completely caught up on this thread, but from my experience with anti-gunners, you cannot talk to them over social media. I have yet, in all of my time on facebook, chat groups, whatever, seen >anyone< actually change their mind on a topic. The reason is, people who want to argue will, people who don't care ignore. Those who are committed to the fight are in it to win, not learn. Our society, especially social media, is designed around "winning" an argument, not making a valid and logical argument that all can learn from. This is compounded by the "like" buttons and stuff they put there. Each little thumbs up is a "point!" that emboldens the combatants.

I have literally asked "What law do you think would benefit in this situation?" and watched the comments come in as my children had death wished upon them, that I would kill myself, or that I shouldn't have even bred. There is no "discussion" to be had with those types. It is a mob that is driven by emotion and stoked by a ceaseless desire to win regardless of righteousness.

The >only< thing I have ever seen work is education. Inviting people to go to the range. Get them one on one and show them. The first time you hand someone a SBR and explain what goes into purchasing it, or walk someone through the irritating task of getting a CCH license, or explain the FFL process when ordering a gun online you can see their minds change. The "ANYONE CAN GET A MACHINE GUN!" turns into "Well...that is a pain in the butt...and it costs what???" or "You mean I have to take a weekend off to go to a class all day? And pay how much?" or "What do you mean I have to find a local FFL and go through them?".

Debate in our society is dead. There is only experience and education that is clinging on by a thread. And with the division that is being spread within us, even those are on life support.
 
B00ger said:
Havent completely caught up on this thread, but from my experience with anti-gunners, you cannot talk to them over social media. I have yet, in all of my time on facebook, chat groups, whatever, seen >anyone< actually change their mind on a topic. The reason is, people who want to argue will, people who don't care ignore. Those who are committed to the fight are in it to win, not learn. Our society, especially social media, is designed around "winning" an argument, not making a valid and logical argument that all can learn from. This is compounded by the "like" buttons and stuff they put there. Each little thumbs up is a "point!" that emboldens the combatants.

I have literally asked "What law do you think would benefit in this situation?" and watched the comments come in as my children had death wished upon them, that I would kill myself, or that I shouldn't have even bred. There is no "discussion" to be had with those types. It is a mob that is driven by emotion and stoked by a ceaseless desire to win regardless of righteousness.

The >only< thing I have ever seen work is education. Inviting people to go to the range. Get them one on one and show them. The first time you hand someone a SBR and explain what goes into purchasing it, or walk someone through the irritating task of getting a CCH license, or explain the FFL process when ordering a gun online you can see their minds change. The "ANYONE CAN GET A MACHINE GUN!" turns into "Well...that is a pain in the butt...and it costs what???" or "You mean I have to take a weekend off to go to a class all day? And pay how much?" or "What do you mean I have to find a local FFL and go through them?".

Debate in our society is dead. There is only experience and education that is clinging on by a thread. And with the division that is being spread within us, even those are on life support.
Click to expand...

Yep, social media gives people the ability to stick out their chest and argue for the sake of arguing. Basically behaving differently than they would in person, or differently than they could get away with in person. And even a level headed genius like me will occasionally have an extra drink or two and be a bigger fool online than I would in person. WE're all subject to keyboard bravado at times.
 
CZfool68 said:
Yep, social media gives people the ability to stick out their chest and argue for the sake of arguing. Basically behaving differently than they would in person, or differently than they could get away with in person. And even a level headed genius like me will occasionally have an extra drink or two and be a bigger fool online than I would in person. WE're all subject to keyboard bravado at times.
Click to expand...

Oh, I am no doubt just as guilty as anyone of saddling up and getting my fight on. I've trolled liberals on local politicians pages. Ive been the one everyones hating on because I took a "evil perspective". Ive gotten just as riled up as anyone. But its just like being a 2 pack a day smoker, you can still acknowledge that it isn't healthy and you should quit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom