Gun Control: How to Influence Politicians And Change Their Votes

[the obsrver]

As some of you have kind of mentioned, my way of talking to a anti gunner would be this. Do you see how the left has done censorship? Do you see that even people from CNN are saying they launched propaganda to affect the election? Do you see how they count population for electoral votes and places like California who have high numbers of illegals count them as population and thus you are not being fairly represented by the way citizens vote? Now do you see that they are attacking the second amendment? Do you not see a pattern and sooner or later they are going to attack something else and that something else may greatly affect you and your family? Or are you naive enough to think they are on your side and will always do what you want?

 

[HansGruber]

 

[SoNic]

 

[C. Sumpin]

A tell.........the only item in my post that bothers you is.......God?

Yep, in the first sentence of the Declaration God is declared. The second sentence Creator.

Now would't that be neat.........to divorce God/Morality from our governing documents. Actually, that is what has happened over the years, and the result?

This simply re enforces my earlier post "no way to reach 'em".

If your choice is to reject anything "God", I respect that. But for me to accept the idea from you that God has not been a part of this nation from the very beginning? Nope, and I'm not sorry. I'll take what God has given rather than what the Government/Godless citizens will allow/approve.

Faith is the continuation of reason.

William Adams

 

[benstt]

A tell.........the only item in my post that bothers you is.......God?

Yep, in the first sentence of the Declaration God is declared. The second sentence Creator.

Now would't that be neat.........to divorce God/Morality from our governing documents. Actually, that is what has happened over the years, and the result?

This simply re enforces my earlier post "no way to reach 'em".

If your choice is to reject anything "God", I respect that. But for me to accept the idea from you that God has not been a part of this nation from the very beginning? Nope, and I'm not sorry. I'll take what God has given rather than what the Government/Godless citizens will allow/approve.

Faith is the continuation of reason.

William Adams

We obviously aren't going to agree on anything. We seem to not even be discussing the same things and you're making some leaps that I won't even call logical. Good luck to you and anyone else reading this thread. I'm out.

 

[Recusant]

John Locke saw rights as natural and inalienable. Locke believed in a natural right to life, liberty, and property. He expressed, at the time, the radical view that government is morally obliged to serve people, namely by protecting life, liberty, and property. Well aware of Locke's writings America’s founding fathers put it well: “all men are created equal . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

 

[C. Sumpin]

We obviously aren't going to agree on anything. We seem to not even be discussing the same things and you're making some leaps that I won't even call logical. Good luck to you and anyone else reading this thread. I'm out.

Told. So there it is. Why such a fracture between left and right.

But we do agree that shooting is fun, a right that should be protected.

I'm in.

 

[BobM]

Told. So there it is. Why such a fracture between left and right.

But we do agree that shooting is fun, a right that should be protected.

I'm in.

.... "Fun" isn't what protecting our 2nd Amendment rights is primarily all about.
- It may be a byproduct at times, but "fun" is secondary to me.

 

[HayesGreener]

Does anyone remember when we had debate teams and everyone shook hands when it was over?

 

[BobM]

Does anyone remember when we had debate teams and everyone shook hands when it was over?

Yep, but it's been a while.....Too long.
Guessing too many people consider debates or constructive argumentation bad?

 

[HansGruber]

Does anyone remember when we had debate teams and everyone shook hands when it was over?

Remember when to be on a debate team, you had to be ready to argue either side of a point—which meant you had to understand both sides.

Not just “I only understand mine, and don't give a damn about the other”.

The ability to hold two opposing ideas in your head at the same time is a dying skill, it would seem.

 

[C. Sumpin]

As for the Declaration of Independence & Constitution, there is nothing to debate.

For those with a bit of understanding and discernment that is.

Yes, it may call for much explanation to those who, mostly, will fail to see it in the end if it is not now apparent.

As for the opposing ideas..........like anyone should not have freedom of expression, right to bear arms and all the rest, I'd be helpless to debate or defend, and admit I can not hold that idea at the same moment with the one I hold now.

 

[C. Sumpin]

Post script: I can shake hands, bust a few caps, and be civil to anyone,..........until they say they want to deny my OH NO! God given rights; then I can still be civil.....and shake hands......while departing for more favorable company.

 

[jumpinjoe]

I think this took a turn from my original post. I wasn't arguing anyone's opinions on 2A here. I was discussing how to reach people who are either anti-2A or ambivalent on it.

And again with all due respect, it seems like you were pretty much arguing 'your' and 'people like you' opinions when you wrote: "How, then, would you reach someone like me? First, how not to. The "what about 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" line is a total waste. People like me can read case law and articles and know that argument is flatout wrong." (emphasis is mine)

For anyone to express that line "is a total waste" says you, and you obviously have already decided that as fact since you and people like you can read case law and articles, again says you. Well others, some unlike you, and some even very much like you can also read case law and articles and may have reached an entirely different opinion ...... but you're already committed to them and their opinions being "flatout wrong". So, where should those folks start their argument?

I always found it very difficult to debate any topic with anyone who has already told me I'm "flatout wrong" before we even start. Surely you being a "highly educated professional" can understand that.

I've got to ask ....... do you not see even a tiny bit of irony in your very own writing here? I've already explained my take on the 2nd in general and particularly that line. I in fact do not find it 'flatout wrong', I do however find it somewhat open to interpretation ...... which BTW is exactly what SCOTUS has done. We can all disagree on the interpretation, but it should be very easy to agree on the basic premise of it. Your writing seems to support disagreement of even the latter.

 

[SoNic]

Remember when to be on a debate team, you had to be ready to argue either side of a point—which meant you had to understand both sides.

Not just “I only understand mine, and don't give a damn about the other”.

The ability to hold two opposing ideas in your head at the same time is a dying skill, it would seem.

Soo... If I say "I want to subjugate you, take all your money and freedom" you NEED to understand me and compromise?
That's the BS propaganda served by leftists in schools. Not all positions are equal, there is a true, higher goal.

 

[Annihilator]

Ok, if you guys continue to argue over this thread, it will be closed, your going off the main topic of what we can do to try to help, not to have disagreements between us members here. I guess I can’t post threads to inform members without it getting like this. Two mods stated to keep on the main topic and not go like it’s going now.

 

[the obsrver]

I love lamp.

 

[KLGunner]

This thread is locked till Mods can go through and remove off topic and/or argumentative comments.