You ever notice
how pro-gun folks are willing to debate their position any time and any where (often, when we’re not even asked); Yet, the anti-gunners only set up shill blogs without comments, issue press releases, and largely stick to venues in which they will not be challenged and avoid those that will? Yeah, me too.
By the way, if Mr. Haslam’s people are still reading, that first link to a shill blog (which is totally hysterical drivel) is funded by the Joyce Foundation too. They also happen to fund the Alliance of Mayors Against Guns.
November 17th, 2006 at 10:55 am
I had that happen with a young lady up where I work. She overheard me talking about gun rights, and mentioned how “no one needed an assault weapon”.
I attempted to engage her in conversation, but when I asked her “What is an assault weapon and how is it different than other rifles?” the conversation died.
I offered to debate her any time she wanted, but so far she’s not shown up.
November 17th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Rustmeister,
Tell her you’re “pro-choice” and that you have the RIGHT to choose whatever means of self-defense you decide you need to protect your body. If she thinks there isn’t a need for an “assault weapon” (assault is either a military term or a crime), thens she’s free to NOT have one. According to the Bill of Rights, the gov’t hasn’t no “delegated powers” to decide what means we choose for our right of armed self-defense.
November 17th, 2006 at 11:25 am
I always say “what’s ‘need’ got to do with it?”
November 17th, 2006 at 11:30 am
And should the gov’t take away everything that “no one needs”? And who decides what “no one needs”? Oh yeah, I forgot, gov’t officials and agents decide. And how will the “no one needs” be enforced–oh, by guns’ of course…those “assault (full-auto) weapons” being carried by gov’t agents with helmets and bullet-proof vests. So they aren’t included in the “no one needs” category I guess…
November 17th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Ron, that’s rather the point. then you point out all the stuff they have that they don’t ‘need’ but is dangerous.
November 17th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Like Alan Keyes once wrote, “the intellectual food” upon which gun-controllers feed is “emotive sludge”.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
I like that: “It’s not a need, it’s a choice.”
Cool beans.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Yeah, Rustmeister, typically these unarmed pacifists who want to impose their lifestyle choices on us–by hired guns, otherwise claim to be “pro-choice”. Ask your young lady friend why women (and the rest of us) should be denied the means of their choice to protect their bodies from robbers, rapists and murderers?? And when they come in gangs, a hi cap mag may be NEEDED!
November 17th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
My guess is that it is because the vast majority of the passion is on the anti-gun control side. Gun proponents probably are more passionate because they feel they are the ones being attacked, whereas gun control proponents usually won’t be effected either way, aside from those who are victims of gun related violence. Therefore, there are far fewer “anti-Gun” folks who are out their trying to defend the position, because there are far fewer passionate about the issue. Hence, the pro-Gun control site has to be funded by a private organization.
It’s sort of like the Gay Marriage debate. In order to make it an issue normal people care about, the far Right has made a concerted effort to show Gay Marriage as an attack on the Christian way of life and “traditional values”. If it was simply an issue of whether or not to grant people similar rights, I don’t think there would be the passion (on the Right) that you see today.
Or perhaps even a better example, the Smoking Issue. While smoker right’s advocates will fight tooth and nail to stop bans from taking place, those who oppose smoker right’s are well funded, and they know the vast majority of citizens support them, regardless of their passion on the issue. Getting into complex arguments about personal rights and second hand smoking research is pointless to anti-smoking folks, because a ban won’t effect them.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
My guess is that it is because the vast majority of the passion is on the anti-gun control side. Gun proponents probably are more passionate because they feel they are the ones being attacked, whereas gun control proponents usually won’t be effected either way, aside from those who are victims of gun related violence. Therefore, there are far fewer “anti-Gun” folks who are out their trying to defend the position, because there are far fewer passionate about the issue. Hence, the pro-Gun control site has to be funded by a private organization.
It’s sort of like the Gay Marriage debate. In order to make it an issue normal people care about, the far Right has made a concerted effort to show Gay Marriage as an attack on the Christian way of life and “traditional values”. If it was simply an issue of whether or not to grant people similar rights, I don’t think there would be the passion (on the Right) that you see today.
Or perhaps even a better example, the Smoking Issue. While smoker right’s advocates will fight tooth and nail to stop bans from taking place, those who oppose smoker right’s are well funded, and they know the vast majority of citizens support them, regardless of their passion on the issue. Getting into complex arguments about personal rights and second hand smoking research is pointless to anti-smoking folks, because a ban doesn’t have the chance of negatively effecting them, only possitively. Similarly, anti-Gun folks don’t see how stringent arms controls can hurt them, only help them.
November 17th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
I’ve got a post over at The Gun Blogs that covers this – The Three Anti-Gun Types
Most of them – including that young lady – are ‘Type 1’ Antis. They don’t really know why guns are bad, they just know they are.
Take her shooting.