New Argument for Gun Rights Advocates: "**** you."

[BehindBlueI's]

My primary response has become:

"Would you like to go shooting with me and see what it's about for yourself?"

 

[OWGEM]

My primary response has become:

"Would you like to go shooting with me and see what it's about for yourself?"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ +5

 

[JTScribe]

What you're saying is true on several subjects. However, not with guns. Because "our side" has resolved that "**** YOU" is the appropriate response, does not mean we aren't listening to their side. I've heard it. I fully understand their position. Years ago I was kinda one of them. And it's not for the lack of them not listening to our side. They've listened, they understand our position, and they don't agree with it. Not even a little.

Both sides are ideologically opposed. It is impossible to find common ground. There is no point shared between guns and no guns. And they aren't really seeking common ground. To them, compromise means we go through a series of iterations where we incrementally give a little gaining nothing in return, until they have 100% of what they want, which is European style gun laws. They concede not one square inch of what they've already won. We concede not one square inch of what we have left, and what we've won back from them.

We're at the point of **** YOU because that's all that's left of this argument. They nickle and dime silly laws into the books, like bullet buttons and magazine restrictions and bans on even possessing a hollow point bullet! They want laws that don't do anything to end violence, but only punish gun owners because they think it's our fault that ***** ass *****es walk into theaters and shoot up the place. They think it's our fault that inner city kids with no nuclear family join gangs and kill each other. They blame us for gun violence and seek laws to punish us. "**** YOU" is EXACTLY the response to that. And not just "**** YOU", but "**** YOU" in your left eye socket! (rhetorical 'you', of course)




As noted above, at some point, "**** YOU" may be the only reasonable reply to an unreasonable argument. And if "**** YOU" is just a statement, then let's just keep repeating it so that it will be a "series of statements".

This, this, a thousand times this.

 

[SteveM4A1]

My primary response has become:

"Would you like to go shooting with me and see what it's about for yourself?"

I'd say this is a good start.

However, some people simply don't enjoy shooting firearms. My better half doesn't like going to the range with me and shooting. The ONLY reason she does is she realizes she needs to practice every now and then and be familiar with the firearm in case she is forced to use it. She is 100% pro gun and 100% finds shooting guns boring.

 

[jamil]

My primary response has become:

"Would you like to go shooting with me and see what it's about for yourself?"

Let's put it in true perspective. No one advocates, I hope, using the "**** you" argument on everyone. I think we've all indicated that argument is reserved for the point where we realize reason is impossible with the particular person.

People who are willing to go shooting already prove themselves to be reasonable. I've invited people to go shooting with me and some have.

I've tried inviting my wife's anti-gun sister, and asking just makes her angry. She just lives on a different plane than most people. She is unreasonable about guns. She is ideologically opposed to them. I've sought common ground and there is none.

Just as an illustration of how she thinks. When she found out her 11 year old daughter played an FPS game at her friend's house (I think it was one of the earlier COD multiplayer), she asked, "while you were shooting those people in that video game, what did your conscience tell you? Didn't that little voice tell you it's wrong to use guns and kill people?"

The response was classic, and dissected the fact that her mom was talking down to her and trying to conscience-shame her. "No, my conscience told me the guns and people aren't real."

SIL tried to press for a different direction, "didn't your conscience tell you something else?"

Daughter: "Yeah, I needed to get better weapons, I was getting my butt kicked." Conversation over. Mom clammed right up. No consequences for the daughter.

Now, I'd not have let my son talk to me like that. But whatever. It's her kid. And she reaped the p'wnage she got. The daughter essentially used the "**** you" argument on her mom. She didn't change her mom's mind, but I'll bet the kid now goes to her friends house and plays COD with impunity.

Her husband, though, seems curious and pretty open to go shooting. I think next time they're in town I might try to invite him. His problem isn't with guns altogether. His problem is that he thinks some people can't be trusted with handguns, so no one should have them. And with "assault rifles" he tends to buy into the media rhetoric. I certainly wouldn't use the "**** you" argument on him because when we talk about it, he seems open to reason.

 

[chipbennett]

This is exactly the reason we have such a sad excuse for political discourse in this country. You want to know why politics has become such a cluster****? I'm sure the refusal to listen to the other side and the copious amounts of sarcasm people are trying to pass for intelligent discussion are contributing factors.

Indeed, because it is clear you didn't actually read what was written in the linked piece. The entire point is that cogent, articulate arguments are the equivalent of pearls before swine, or spitting in the wind, because the other side does not argue in good faith. Their purpose is not to debate on the merits, but rather to control. There is neither purpose nor need in attempting argumentation on the playing field they create.

 

[jamil]

Indeed, because it is clear you didn't actually read what was written in the linked piece. The entire point is that cogent, articulate arguments are the equivalent of pearls before swine, or spitting in the wind, because the other side does not argue in good faith. Their purpose is not to debate on the merits, but rather to control. There is neither purpose nor need in attempting argumentation on the playing field they create.

I think they're coming from a different point, which is about winning hearts and minds of regular individuals. That is where we win the argument. I completely agree with that. Telling them "**** you" will only hurt us. And really, most people I encounter don't really know both sides. They just know the side the media has presented. Often when they hear our side of it, they at least walk away more unsure of their position than before.

But certainly, there are unreasonable people and you might as well tell them "**** you", if they haven't already said it to you.

 

[singlemalt]

And sometimes you just need to tell one of these "gun control" a**hats to **** off!

 

[KG1]

Gun owners get a BIG punitive **** you every time a ridiculous kneejerk, do nothing, feel good law gets imposed on them.

 

[chipbennett]

I think they're coming from a different point, which is about winning hearts and minds of regular individuals. That is where we win the argument. I completely agree with that. Telling them "**** you" will only hurt us. And really, most people I encounter don't really know both sides. They just know the side the media has presented. Often when they hear our side of it, they at least walk away more unsure of their position than before.

But certainly, there are unreasonable people and you might as well tell them "**** you", if they haven't already said it to you.

Agreed, but in the context of the OP (and specifically, the context of the linked article), that's a non sequitur. The article is explicitly not referring to those people, and does not advocate making such a dismissive, non-argument to such people.

 

[jamil]

Agreed, but in the context of the OP (and specifically, the context of the linked article), that's a non sequitur. The article is explicitly not referring to those people, and does not advocate making such a dismissive, non-argument to such people.

I know. I read the article. However, I don't think it's a bad thing to explicitly differentiate the two.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think they're coming from a different point, which is about winning hearts and minds of regular individuals. That is where we win the argument. I completely agree with that. Telling them "**** you" will only hurt us. And really, most people I encounter don't really know both sides. They just know the side the media has presented. Often when they hear our side of it, they at least walk away more unsure of their position than before.

But certainly, there are unreasonable people and you might as well tell them "**** you", if they haven't already said it to you.

How do you win hearts and minds when anti-gunners typically have faulty hearts and do not have minds?

 

[Bill of Rights]

How do you win hearts and minds when anti-gunners typically have faulty hearts and do not have minds?

Oh wait. We're talking about anti-gunners. I forgot... they don't have those, either.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Oh wait. We're talking about anti-gunners. I forgot... they don't have those, either.

 

[singlemalt]

Oh wait. We're talking about anti-gunners. I forgot... they don't have those, either.

I didn't know that the Duke said that. I thought it was someones wife!

 

[FreeFAL]

My response to antis is simply that our disagreement aside, their whining is pointless because of the 2nd. They can let me know when they have the votes to repeal it.

Until then they can **** right off, and stop wasting everyone's time.

 

[kaveman]

There is no legal option available for repealing any of the first ten amendments,..........that's why they're called the Bill of Rights and separate from all that other administrative crap tacked on to the Constitution. If every single citizen of the US agreed to repeal the 2nd, it could not LEGALLY be done. In fact, it cannot legally be 'infringed' in any way. It's simply there, so deal with it or dissolve the USofA and start up a new country with a NEW contract. The terms of THIS one are already set and non-negotiable.

F-you is a perfectly legitimate argument in this case because there is no argument to be made. The entire concept of reasonable debate is senseless. You're attempting to debate with people who are either ignorant or dishonest and once you've narrowed it down to ignorance that will not be swayed, it falls under the heading of dishonest. End of discussion. How long would you debate with someone who wanted to adopt 'reasonable restrictions' on gravity? Would you be receptive to arguments based on the numbers of children that could theoretically be 'saved' if we just had a little less of it?

Why contribute to the delusion of these people by even accepting that there's an argument to be made? There is none.

 

[IndyDave1776]

This is exactly the reason we have such a sad excuse for political discourse in this country. You want to know why politics has become such a cluster****? I'm sure the refusal to listen to the other side and the copious amounts of sarcasm people are trying to pass for intelligent discussion are contributing factors.

Your position is founded on a faulty premise. Constitutional rights are not subject to negotiation. That's why they are 'rights' and not conditional revocable privileges.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't think this is correct. If you'll look at the preamble of the Bill of Rights, it appears to me they were adopted as ordinary amendments to the Constitution. As such, any of them, even the 2A is subject to amendment--i.e. modification, enhancement, and/or repeal.

There is no legal option available for repealing any of the first ten amendments,..........that's why they're called the Bill of Rights and separate from all that other administrative crap tacked on to the Constitution. If every single citizen of the US agreed to repeal the 2nd, it could not LEGALLY be done. In fact, it cannot legally be 'infringed' in any way. It's simply there, so deal with it or dissolve the USofA and start up a new country with a NEW contract. The terms of THIS one are already set and non-negotiable.

F-you is a perfectly legitimate argument in this case because there is no argument to be made. The entire concept of reasonable debate is senseless. You're attempting to debate with people who are either ignorant or dishonest and once you've narrowed it down to ignorance that will not be swayed, it falls under the heading of dishonest. End of discussion. How long would you debate with someone who wanted to adopt 'reasonable restrictions' on gravity? Would you be receptive to arguments based on the numbers of children that could theoretically be 'saved' if we just had a little less of it?

Why contribute to the delusion of these people by even accepting that there's an argument to be made? There is none.

 

[kaveman]

They were adopted in the same manner as any later amendments, but they are a list of restrictions to federal power. Please to be explaining the process that allows the federal government(or the states through the 14th amendment)to amend or repeal that which they have no constitutional authority over.

You can go to any online source discussing the possibility of repeal of any of the Bill of Rights and inevitably the 18th(Prohibition) and 21st amendments are cited as proof that 1-10 can be amended or repealed,..............but last time I checked neither 18 nor 21 were in the BoR. Yes, there's a process for amendment; no, it's not valid for 1-10 because Congress shall make no law,......shall not be infringed,......and all the other shall nots.