A Comparison of Techniques in Defending the Second Amendment

Warning Take Action Call Protest
Warning Take Action Call Protest

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- In the past months, I have emphasized that it is not enough to fight hard for our Second Amendment rights, Second Amendment supporters need to fight smart, too. In today’s very hostile media climate, the approach we use in defending our rights will define how we come across to our fellow Americans. It might sound repetitive, but as we saw with the Ask Amy column which became a fiasco thanks to responses from some that were ill-thought out (at best), it is necessary.

Loyal Ammoland readers are very passionate about their Second Amendment rights. This is a good thing. When Beto O’Rourke and Eric Swalwell talk about mandatory buybacks of modern multi-purpose semi-automatic firearms, they seek to perpetrate an injustice in the form of punishing millions of Americans who did nothing wrong by infringing on their rights.

They are in the wrong, along with Everytown for Gun Safety, Michael Bloomberg, March for Our Lives, the Brady Campaign, and other anti-Second Amendment groups and politicians.

Those who have stood against the injustices that those groups seek to inflict on law-abiding Americans, like the NRA, and other pro-Second Amendment groups, are in the right by defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

But while we know the facts and the truth about the purpose of the Second Amendment’s protection of our natural rights, far too many Americans don’t. How we talk about Second Amendment issues could determine if these Americans eventually see things our way or if they instead choose to go along with the likes of Beto O’Rourke, Eric Swalwell, Cory Booker, and Dianne Feinstein.

The fury we all feel about the intended infliction of injustice is a righteous anger. However, if we let that anger control us, we risk doing more harm than good. So, I’d like you to put yourself in the position of a suburban parent. They don’t own guns, they work, they take their kids to school and soccer games, and their knowledge of Second Amendment issues is often what is in the local paper and the news. You’re a neighbor they’ve been on friendly terms with, and maybe they’ve seen you wearing a NRA hat or noticed something that reveals your Second Amendment support. I’ll post two responses to a possible question or statement they might ask or make. Then ask yourself which one would be more likely to convince you to support the Second Amendment.

“That school shooting was horrible, why did it happen?”

  1. “People – real, live, allegedly lucid people – actually believe that this ‘shooting’ was real? Wow. That is difficult to believe. Just watch a single one of the interviews of the crisis actors involved and tell me with a straight face that the person has just witnessed about a dozen people being gunned down.”
  2. “I think wild guesses about what caused this won’t do anybody any good. It’s better to wait for the facts to find out what happened in this case. Right now, I’m just keeping the victims in my prayers.”

“Some Congressman wants to ban assault rifles and require people to turn them in. Do you think that’s a good idea?”

  1. “From my cold dead hands.”
  2. “What he is proposing is the infliction of a massive injustice on millions of Americans who had nothing to do with this or any other shooting by infringing on their rights. Justice Department statistics show that rifles of all types are used in murders less often than clubs, bare hands, or knives.”

“What is so bad about a red flag law?”

  1. “This American ain’t surrendering anything!”
  2. “The problem is that many of the proposals have serious problems, including a lack of due process and the failure to require those who are subjected to extreme risk orders to receive mental health treatment. In addition, civil commitment is another legal option on the books for individuals who are a threat to themselves or others. Sadly, those currently in office are unable or unwilling to use that option as well. But they are almost immediately demanding new laws in the wake of these tragedies.”

“But how can we address gun violence?”

  1. “Could you please kindly pull your head out of your butt, STFU and go away…. pretty please?”
  2. “There are solutions. We could enforce existing laws on the books to put away people with criminal records that illegally possess firearms. We can use harsh sentences for those who misuse guns in the course of committing crimes. We also support better policing. All too often, these tragedies can be prevented with tools that are available, but which those currently in office are unable or unwilling to use. Yet they are always demanding new laws on guns that target law-abiding citizens.”

“Why do you oppose universal background checks?”

  1. “Get your skull out of your backside and start standing firm on the constitution and the Second Amendment as written.”
  2. “Because background checks have not worked to prevent crime. Justice Department studies show that criminals acquire their guns illegally, usually through straw purchases, theft, or the black market. And mass shooters often pass background checks. Furthermore, in the past, anti-Second Amendment groups opposed instant background checks in favor of waiting periods.”

“So why do you oppose a license and registration for guns when we need a license to drive a car?”

  1. “Every one of these schemes are just a way to infringe and violate the Second Amendment rights of citizens.”
  2. “Licensing and registration schemes only would apply to law-abiding citizens. Courts have ruled that those prohibited from owning guns cannot be required to register guns, because it would violate their right against self-incrimination. In any case, criminals break the law to acquire their guns, usually through theft, straw purchases, or on the black market. Furthermore, some of the initial licensing laws, like New York’s Sullivan Act, were intended to deny Irish and Italian immigrants the right to have handguns for personal protection. Furthermore, many groups seeking gun control want registration in order to facilitate confiscation – which would be a massive injustice against millions of law-abiding Americans who have committed no crime.”

Again, I would encourage loyal Ammoland readers to compare these responses, placing themselves in the position of a fellow American who is on the fence, or leaning toward backing anti-Second Amendment legislation. Ask yourself, “Which response is more likely to make me more willing back the Second Amendment, or at least be willing to hear more?” Once you have come up with the answer, act accordingly.


Harold Hu, chison

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.

  • 76
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    25 Comment threads
    51 Thread replies
    3 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    26 Comment authors
    TheRevelatorWild BillOldvetgsteelegrifhunter Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    grifhunter
    Member
    grifhunter

    Can we please stop with the silly talk of shooting the cops making illegal gun seizures? Or the fantasy of gun rights being restored by armed revolt. No more, please. Nobody on here has the balls to do it. And the talk of such nonsense lulls the dull minded gun owners into inaction politically, figuring, instead of getting active in a political campaigns, or donating serious money to pro 2A candidates, reasoning , “I’ll just hoard ammo and ARs and wait for the big molon labe moment”. Except it never comes. People need to wake the ef up: The gun… Read more »

    TheRevelator
    Member
    TheRevelator

    @Grifhunter Wait and see. 4 wounded executing an illegal raid in Houston Texas before the officers in question murdered them. Of course, that was birdshot down there. Now two officers are being charged for the murder, and the rest of the department is under investigation. Don’t push us, and don’t test us. Just because YOU don’t have the balls doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t. If you wanted to talk about abject stupidity, lulling gun owners into laziness, look no further than your own “Just contribute more money and help elect another politician.” Wow, real original there. If only… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @Rev, Killing one’s family pet would, understandably, render one temporarily insane and therefore not responsible for killing every one of those sons of bitches.

    TheRevelator
    Member
    TheRevelator

    @Wild Bill

    Can a front door be qualified as a “Pet”……………….

    This is why I don’t open a door for knocking, my doorbell has been mysteriously under disrepair for some time, and certain rooms are used strategically based on how they might offer cover overlooking the ingress point.

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @Rev, Well .. I … ahhh. Sure … what the hell … why not! LOL

    gsteele
    Member
    gsteele

    It appears that bashing the author is a favorite pastime of many of those who post below. It seems you have missed the point of his article. In a nutshell, he’s saying that there are hardcore pro- and hard core anti-gun people. And there is a third class of undecideds, whose opinion might be moved by a compelling argument. He is contrasting an in-your-face, uncompromising, jackass response that will sell no one, with reasoned, fact-based persuasion that might. How many of you are being persuaded by the Swalwells and Bookers and other Democrat demagogues who take a dictatorial, you-will-do-as-I-say-and-like-it attitude… Read more »

    TheRevelator
    Member
    TheRevelator

    @gsteele Sorry, you haven’t been here for the past two years apparently having to deal with him. Harold has long been a Blame those on the right who are refusing Infringements on the 2nd Amendment. I’ll give you an example using your own comment. WE are not bashing the left when we say, “Sorry I will not comply with the infringements you want to push against me. If you try, I will defend myself”. This may seem strange to you, but telling someone to keep their hand out of your jacket where your wallet is while you have the jacket… Read more »

    gsteele
    Member
    gsteele

    Nonsense. Regardless of what he has written in the past, the current article was a call to rationality in discourse. It was NOT aimed at convincing anti-gunners of anything. It was an impassioned plea that pro-gunners change their tone for the sake of greater effectiveness of argument among undecideds, who can be swayed. You tell me “take your ^&*() hand away from my pocket,” and we are enemies. You tell me “excuse me, your hand is near my pocket” and we can be friends. As for Swalwells, the correct response is “I’m gonna drop a nuke in your pocket if… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @gs, No, not nonsense … context. Harrold’s previous writings provide context for his current article. You must not come into the middle of the debate and presume that rationality is absent. And you should not be telling us what this forum should be for. As for your analogies, please save them. Analogies are not logic, and they just make your writing longer.

    TheRevelator
    Member
    TheRevelator

    @gsteele Sorry, the nonsense is with you right now. I particularly like that you try to defend the person sticking their hand into someone elses pocket, instead trying to make the victim into the badguy for daring to say “Hey that is my pocket, stay out of it.” The person who has control over who is a friend or enemy is the idiot trying to reach in, not the victim. “The history of this guy’s writing is irrelevant; this should be a forum for responding to what he wrote” Uh, ok retard…. That’s exactly what I just did. This may… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @gs, Every movement needs both types of debater. As to bashing the author, he invites it. It would be rude not to accept.

    gsteele
    Member
    gsteele

    Every movement has both types of debater. Those who confront and bully fail; those who appeal to logic, rationality, and fact – while they may not succeed at a specific time, will enjoy greater success in general. I believe you are just watching a different movie – scripted by the bashing-oriented peer attitudes of the others here. And missing a correct point of his. Regardless of how you feel about his past work, you can always rely on the fact that even a blind squirrel trips over an acorn now and then. The mind is like an umbrella – it… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @gs, The socialists respect not for your approach. They would roll right over you. Let our more vociferous debaters confront them, and perhaps, you should confine your debate to the more contemplative thinkers.

    Oldvet
    Member
    Oldvet

    @GS…Try your approach on AOC

    TheRevelator
    Member
    TheRevelator

    @gsteele “I am, and have been my whole, long life – staunchly pro 2A.” Actions, not words. Nothing you say matters if your actions display duplicity. “Regardless of how you feel about his past work, you can always rely on the fact that even a blind squirrel trips over an acorn now and then.” Had you paid attention instead of targeting an older article, you might have seen where I gave him credit for the one that was written after this. I do judge based solely on content and not hyperbole. Because I look at what is written and the… Read more »

    Oldvet
    Member
    Oldvet

    @WB …Haven’t read the article yet nor other comments , clicked on your comment followed it here . Would bet money , marbles , or chalk your talking about Harold ! ???

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @gs, But your technique is not convincing me either, without even reaching the underlying facts, logic, and conclusions. How do you explain that, without doing what you complain of?

    freewill
    Member
    freewill

    Licenses are privileges, I have a Right to be armed, my license says shall not be infringed!

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @free, No, in the language of Constitutional analysis and the big letter Law, privilege is another word for Right. In the vernacular of the common person privilege is almost universally misused.
    License, permit, certificate, authorization, and hall pass are words for something that the government allows one to do.

    freewill
    Member
    freewill

    A universal back ground check prohibits me from selling my private proprty! and if I need fast cash to pay an unexpected bill and take it to a pawn shop, I’l have to get governments permission to get it back!

    freewill
    Member
    freewill

    gun violence:You cant legally buy a gun in Chicago or the U.S Virgin Islands, crime is out of control, when you clean those two places up we will talk again, until then, my community is safe because we are armed and capable of stopping criminals, AND WE WILL!

    freewill
    Member
    freewill

    If a red flag is such a good idea then lets not confiscate the homes firearms, lets just haul this lunatic off to jail, oh we cant do that without due process, he has rights!

    freewill
    Member
    freewill

    No its not a good idea to turn in your semi-autos, if they are banned then the police will be coming to murder me because I have a god given right to defend my self using any tool neccessary

    freewill
    Member
    freewill

    There was a school shooting because the criminal knew it was a gun free zone and the teachers were unable to protect the children, so instead they run and hid hoping and praying the police would arrive with their guns to stop him!

    andre
    Member
    andre

    greggs: You are completely ignorant of history. The Second Amendment is NOT a God-given right. The 2A was given to you by man, and thus can be taken away by man. And if you righteous idiots don’t wake up to Hutchinson’s arguments, some day it will be.

    TheRevelator
    Member
    TheRevelator

    @Andre We have a God given right to life, and therefore a right to defend that life. Because we have a right to defend that life, we have a right to whatever tool will allow us to efficiently defend that life. Therefore we have a God given right to keep and bear arms. Nothing you say can alter this, there is no argument you can make. Our rights pre date the constitution and exist independently from it. Neither you nor Harold have any say over it. In the end, we know there is not a thing you can do to… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @Rev, I think this new propagandist really just wants to declare that there is no God, and points to history. So I would put the question to him, “What history proves that God does not exist?”
    As to history and the Second Amendment. There is a hell of a lot of recorded history that proves that the founders who debated, agreed on, and enshrined our right, to keep and bear arms, in the words of the Second Amendment, believed that those rights came from God and are inherent in each of us. So who is ignorant of history?

    TheRevelator
    Member
    TheRevelator

    @Wild Bill I know, that is why my argument was written the way it was. Doesn’t matter what he thinks, believes or feels, he has no authority or right to restrict or oppress my rights. Why? Because I have a right to tell him no despite how angry it may make him, and if he tries to attack me for saying no, I have a right to defend myself with whatever force necessary to prevent harm to myself. That is the beauty of what I said. If he is trying to use Christianity as an excuse to twist scripture, I… Read more »

    TheRevelator
    Member
    TheRevelator

    @Wild Bill

    Also, there is one more thing I left hidden dealing with “History” which shows if ignorance is the charge, andre would be the guilty party.

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @Rev, do not spring the trap precipitously.

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @Rev, Yes.

    freewill
    Member
    freewill

    If government shall be obliged to form an Army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people…Hamilton and if we didnt have a gun, we might catch ourselves coming and going at the whistle from the man in the white house no matter who he is 🙂

    TheRevelator
    Member
    TheRevelator

    Harold Does it again. When it comes to those he sees as the problem, it isn’t hard to see where his automatic prejudice lies. Any who take a no compromise stance on the Constitution have been the bane of Harolds authorship here at ammoland. It is now no longer enough for him to display his cowardice and desire to compromise our rights, he has a deep resentment of those who take a hardline stance and refuse to listen to his bovine scatology. Take note of how he presents what he views as the hardline stance. An exaggerated form meant to… Read more »

    TheRevelator
    Member
    TheRevelator

    Oh goody, the ghost voters return. Cowardly people who know they cant engage in a debate with facts but feel like clicking a button will somehow punish me. 🙂 Well, tough luck.

    River Rat
    Member
    River Rat

    But while we know the facts and the truth about the purpose of the Second Amendment’s protection of our natural rights, far too many Americans don’t…. I do not believe that the purpose, the facts and truth of the Second Amendment protections have been fully explored or defined by the courts. Is there a single supreme court justice with a fervent desire to put an end to the assault on the 2A? Scotus, in my opinion has failed to act. They have failed in their duty to uphold and protect the constitution. Their egregious refusal to take 2A issues head… Read more »

    Will Flatt
    Member

    You state, ” I do not believe that the purpose, the facts and truth of the Second Amendment protections have been fully explored or defined by the courts.” The problem with that statement is that we do not need the courts to explore or define ANY of our Rights. This is not merely because our rights are self-evident, but also because the framers of our Constitution laid out their reasoning in the Federalist Papers. If we leave it to the courts to explore & define our Rights for us, then we are surrendering our Rights to an oligarchy of nine.… Read more »

    TheRevelator
    Member
    TheRevelator

    @ Will Flatt

    Excellently put.

    River Rat
    Member
    River Rat

    @Will Flatt – the facts and truths in the bill of rights have been debated in the courts many times over many issues. To my knowledge, the 2A has not received the same attention by the USSC. Until the statement “shall not be infringed” is defined categorically by the USSC, our law enforcement, legislators and the media are free to interpret as they see fit. Legislators today feel confident in attacking every element of gun ownership from importation of guns, gun parts, ammunition, FFLs ad infinitum. If the USSC cannot or does not step up to prevent this behavior, it… Read more »

    Will Flatt
    Member

    The Constitution was written to be understood by the average citizen. No one needs to be told what “shall not be infringed” means – it is SELF-EVIDENT. If a plain reading of a law shows it is in conflict with the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights), it is VOID (Marbury v Madison). THERE IS NO PARSING OF “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”!!! The 2A cannot be done away with. The Right predates our government. If they fail to obey it, that doesn’t negate our Right, it negates their authority to hold the office whose Oath they have violated. It’s so… Read more »

    River Rat
    Member
    River Rat

    @WILL FLATT – you have succeeded in making my point. Thank you.

    Will Flatt
    Member

    I don’t think what I said means what you think I said. Read again. We don’t need the USSC to tell us what our rights are.

    TheRevelator
    Member
    TheRevelator

    @Will Flatt

    Is River Rat channeling Wallace Shawn as Vizzini?

    “Inconceivable!”

    River Rat
    Member
    River Rat

    Taken from DC vs Heller :
    “[S]ince this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field.”

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @River Rat, That sounds like dicta. The justices propound a lot of dicta in their opinions. Look to the head notes to see what the actual ruling is.

    TheRevelator
    Member
    TheRevelator

    @River Rat The Point Will Flatt is making is not the same as what you were arguing, regardless of how you meant it to come across there were some problems with your initial premise. #1. The Supreme court has no authority over the Bill of Rights period. They can neither discount it, redefine it, or pick and choose what areas are necessary. Almost all of their rulings concerning what applies to the bill of rights have been wrong. It is only cases where those rights have been categorically denied that they have ever gotten a ruling correct. Those types of… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @Rat, There are hundreds of S. Ct. cases that talk about the Second Amendment. In fact, there are two hundred years of S. Ct. cases about the Second Amendment. See “Supreme Court Gun Cases” by Kopel, Halbrook, and Korwin. (a 659 page volume.) All of those cases tell you exactly what the elitists, globalists, libtards, and democrat national socialists don’t want you to know, to wit: The natural/civil right to keep and carry firearms and other weapons, sufficient to make a meaningful defense against criminal or criminal government are inherent to the individual, pre political, only enshrined/enumerated in the Bill… Read more »

    tomcat
    Member
    tomcat

    When the article mentioned Ask Amy in the first paragraph I knew the rest of the article was a tip toe through the tulips event. The one and only thing that is accomplished by Harold’s “soft side” is that he irritates enough readers that they post rejections to him. His ideas of changing these pansies to be anything else is DOA and will never get through their thick skulls unless you add a pile of money then they will agree with you until they get the money.

    JMR
    Member
    JMR

    @tomcat, in case you missed it, I apologize for the way I argued and insulted you in the democracy topic the other day. I should not have done that, and I should have stated my points better, and more clearly, but ultimately I never should have made it personal.

    gregs
    Member
    gregs

    harold, don’t you think we have tried this approach before, use it now and will continue to use it in response to anit-2A advocates or do you think we are just neanderthals or mindless drones? they have no moral, logical or ethical superiority over us when they attempt to take a God given human right away from law-abiding citizens. the majority of media pushes an anti-2A agenda. there was a time in American history that we the people said, “We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore”, and it looks like that time may be upon… Read more »

    loveaduck
    Member
    loveaduck

    A lot of people hate to think beyond the mere right/wrong, agree/disagree. You can stand behind a closed mind or understand the “other” opinion and figure out how to change it. The first accomplishes nothing. The second may lead to one more on our side. So think or not.

    TheRevelator
    Member
    TheRevelator

    @loveaduck I happen to be one of the people open to talking to the other side. I just have principles I will never compromise on, and if at any time it becomes a demand that I compromise those principles the other person is showing they have no interest in reaching an understanding. Understandings go both ways just like tolerance. If at anytime one side thinks that the other’s rights must be violated for them to be happy, then they are automatically in the wrong. “Thinking” has nothing to do with being open to giving up a little of our rights… Read more »

    JPM
    Member
    JPM

    Here goes Harold again advocating a Politically Correct approach to defending the 2nd Amendment so as not to “offend” the anti-gun crowd. Bullshit! Don’t even bother dealing with the antis as you can’t win and if you compromise you’ve already lost. Political correctness is one of the main reasons this country is in such dire straights today and pandering to the left (kissing their asses) will not garner anything but ridicule for being weak and accomplish nothing. Instead of mollycoddling the left, it would be better to demonstrate to them that we are not going to roll over and play… Read more »

    Ned2
    Member
    Ned2

    The best technique period in preserving our God given right to defend ourselves is to just say “No”.
    No, you cannot have my guns.

    I’m done talking about this.

    TexDad
    Member
    TexDad

    Logic, facts, caring, and courtesy, all necessary aspects of gun rights advocacy. Compromise is not in that list.

    Tionico
    Member
    Tionico

    Consider the situation where one of us mught be confronted by an evil person attempting to break into our home, car, fixed place of business, and clearly desiring to deprive his victim of valuable personal property. How many here, INCLUDING HAROLD, would adopt his proposed tactics and fear “offending” the thief, or dssuading him from his planned course of action? Once they manage to “get our guns”, then its open season on any/everything else we think we have. Including our other liberties. Harold, you simply do NOT comprehend what we are facing. They who would disarm us are evil organised,… Read more »

    TexDad
    Member
    TexDad

    That first bit is a little absurd. That dude, you shoot. And you don’t apologize for it.

    Dave in Fairfax
    Editor
    Dave in Fairfax

    Harold, I give you credit for staying calm in the face of invective. I think, though, that you you fail to recognize a very basic fallacy in your arguments. Your arguments, when they don’t involve the further deterioration of the Second Amendment, are based upon logic and reason. The vast majority of the population lack those qualities and have no willingness to do the heavy lifting to gain them. The vast majority of either the anti-gun, or merely ignorant, people cannot be swayed with logic, they run on emotion. Emotion trumps logic every time. That is why it is such… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @Dave in F, Spot on. And I would add that often the people that we put in powerful positions are only moved by the rage of the crowd. I note that often minority opinions win out over facts and logic because our government fears the rage of the crowd. That is why the libtards use fake rage and the media manufactures fake rage.

    gregs
    Member
    gregs

    D in F. too many people let their emotions and feelings rule their lives. while they are good to have, they should not rule their lives. they also think they are cognitively superior to others but lack the ability to articulate anything but talking points they heard online or tv. facts, research, logic and reasoning do not affect them at all and they reject them if they do not support their viewpoint. free thinking is a quickly disappearing idea in this country because of the indoctrination camps a.k.a. public schools. even your own children can turn against the values you… Read more »

    Qui Bono?
    Member
    Qui Bono?

    Thank you! We cannot afford to alienate anybody with angry, boorish comments. Just because you disagree with others’ point of view – no matter how passionate your own beliefs – you do the entire pro-2nd Amendment community a huge disservice if you not only fail to persuade them of the merits of your own position, but drive them into the arms of those actively working to restrict our rights. Words matter. Choose your words wisely and use them responsibly and respectfully. If not, you risk becoming like Magua in “Last of the Mohicans,” of whom Nathaniel said, “Magua’s heart is… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @QB, There are exceptions.

    Joel F
    Member
    Joel F

    Thank you. Good article.

    CaptainKerosene
    Member
    CaptainKerosene

    The news media is always in a race to be first. The facts can wait. Almost all T and movies assume the national laws are gun registration and guns are available without registration or background checks. Failures of government record distribution and lax reporting make the NCIS database less than perfect. It almost seems that they want some mas public killings because that way laws they want can be passed in a hurry. The NRA, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA, and other want perfect safety yet they are accused of “wanting killings.” A little logic proves that is completely wrong. The… Read more »

    Knute
    Member
    Knute

    In talking with non gun people, I rely on a two pronged strategy. Facts on the one hand and bribery on the other. I’ve found that most have gotten their ‘information’ from TV and the movies. I try to gently insert questions that will make them think about their response. If I see some thought coming into their eyes while repeating the CNN talking points they’ve memorized, I then suggest a trip to the range to see for themselves if what they were told is accurate. For example, If the talking point they like is: “fires a 30 round clip… Read more »

    Will
    Member
    Will

    … fires a 30 round clip in less than a second,…nope, maybe a 30 rd magazine in less than a second ? Nope,won’t happen !

    Knute
    Member
    Knute

    I was referring to people who believe idiots like this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJmFEv6BHM0
    OFC, anyone with a bit of information knows better. But some believe in such foolishness. I’ve had good luck dispelling such idiot myths on the range. When a non gunner sees their split times displayed on a screen in hundredths of a second, they figure out for themselves real quick that what they saw on CNN was just plain fiction.

    Huapakechi
    Member
    Huapakechi

    When they bring up the cnn and other invented facts, bring up the “rocket assist” gas tank fire expose and the dan rather’s “fake but accurate” military record attack against bush 43, and anything else you can verify as fake news. Be sure to include the invented statistics on mass shootings and the “gun show loophole” that does not exist.

    Knute
    Member
    Knute

    In my experience, facts alone don’t even get a chance. Antis tend to discount everything one says that doesn’t jibe with their pre-programmed, CNN worldview.
    But once they SEE for themselves the facts of the matter, words are not needed. The personal experience enters their heads, while any words one might say do not.
    Not that they turn around instantly. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and 20 years of CNN conditioning doesn’t just vanish overnight either. But if you’ve made them think, instead of just parrot the lamestream media, you’ve planted a seed…

    nrringlee
    Member
    nrringlee

    Spot on. We have two tools that we exclusively own. First, we own the truth. The test of our veracity is the history of our nation as a free nation. That nation is based upon natural law and enumerated rights as opposed to government power. Secondly, we own knowledge. Take people to the range. My friends think I am nuts to drive 600 miles to instruct at NRA Women on Target events. Doing so changes more minds than you will ever change in blog posts. Instruct, answer questions, replace fear with knowledge. Take your neighbors to the range if you… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @nr, And fun, don’t forget we own the fun part, too! The gun grabbers offer nothing. I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @Knute, How do you get them on the shooting range to do all this shooting and timing? When I can get a liberal guest out on my shooting range, I’d go straight to the fun part and introduce safety gradually. Then we all have lunch.

    Knute
    Member
    Knute

    Whatever media talking point they parrot, it’s always inaccurate. I carefully and gently explain where the error is and, more importantly, WHY it is. They usually either walk away or attack my viewpoint. If they attack, then instead of being offended, I offer to take them shooting at my own expense… just to see if what they were told was accurate. Once they see that it was not… then comes lunch! And more talk, but I avoid the temptation to say “I told you so!”. I just mention other media lies they’ve heard, and show them the errors in there… Read more »

    Knute
    Member
    Knute

    It occurs to me that I might have made it sound like I’m setting up a competition stage. Not so. I don’t even tell them what the timer is. I just tell them they must keep the muzzle pointed down range for safety, and that I will get straight behind them to be as safe as possible, and that they can start firing at any time after they hear the beep. OFC, they will have slow first shot times, but it is their split times between shots that I would SHOW to them. And they shoot at a large target… Read more »

    Sisu
    Member
    Sisu

    Harold, you are young, arrogant and myopic. To boot you appear to be invested (monetarily; income stream) in your opinions, and thus do not present in the least to be objective. … You seem to be but are not among the NRA sycophants; not among the Ammoland opinion pieces that are sufficiently discrete so as to be “thought provoking”. Separately, it is my life experience that when one is incessantly espousing (writing) their views, they cannot hear (process) what others are sharing. … The criticism you receive in comments I believe is speaking to the fact that in general readers… Read more »

    Will
    Member
    Will

    Harold,just stay away ! No one wants more of your lies and bullshit !

    Will
    Member
    Will

    JOIN GOA ! THE ONLY NO-COMPROMISE GUN LOBBY IN WASHINGTON !