Let them out themselves, especially if it's someone who claims otherwise to be "a strong supporter of the Second Amendment".
As far as the highlighted portion, you can choose based on several factors how you will handle such bleating.
I've had countless such conversations and without going into exhaustive detail can give a few examples of how it went. You usually only have about three to five seconds (sometimes longer if you can talk fast) to make your point, due to them having the attention span of a small four-legged animal. Even then, they usually become unhinged and keep going in circles, with massive hyperbole, misdirection and some ad hominem thrown in. (Partial excerpt with their comments in red, mine in black for easier reading.)
What does anyone need with <insert here 'more than ten rounds', ___ type of gun, or other item they want banned or restricted for everyone so they can feel good about 'doing something'>.
It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.
Oh yeah?! Well I suppose you think it's OK for people to be running around with these assault weapons!
First of all, it helps to know what you're talking about. What are you calling an "assault weapon" (or assault rifle)? Using shock-value hype terms to describe what something looks like, instead of its function, makes you sound ignorant about the subject of arms. By most accounts, the term originated with Hitler himself who, upon the report of the development of a new magazine fed selective-fire rifle for the Wehrmacht, dubbed it the Sturmgewehr - (roughly translated to 'storm rifle'. He liked those fancy, 'tough-sounding' names). Even where the origins are disputed, the term - if it is to be used at all - is recognized by those knowledgeable on the subject to mean a select-fire (that is, capable of both semi and fully automatic fire) rifle or carbine, using as standard equipment a magazine of relatively high capacity (that is, compared to most contemporary designs), and chambered for an intermediate cartridge. As such, they are considered 'machine guns' by the BATF and have been heavily restricted since 1934 and new models banned for purchase by civilians (that's the people, BTW) since 1986. So, your side got its way on that one, and now you want more. I understand that you don't give a damn about details and in your outrage at a criminal act - in this case a mass murder - you want something banned for everyone (except of course, the police and military and possibly others who you might deem acceptable). At any rate, a crime was committed and the suspect is in custody. If the system operates as it should and the evidence against him incontrovertible, he'll be executed, instead of released on parole or housed and fed at taxpayer expense.
Although the type of murder weapon may be of some interest, it is at best of secondary importance and further, mistakenly calling a semiautomatic military style look-alike an 'assault rifle' is a distraction from the issue at hand.
BS! If he hadn't had that <insert "high-capacity" this or that, or "all those bullets"[sic], he wouldn't have been able to kill all those people! You crazy gun nuts and your second amendment! The Founding Fathers could not possibly have imagined such high-powered weapons when they wrote that. Besides, that was a different time and nobody needs such things in the modern world! By your logic, we have to wait until after someone commits a crime to do something. We as a society have a right to feel safe from gun violence!
Strictly speaking, no you don't. Although I'd prefer it be that way, I can't control how you "feel", nor do I have any particular desire to control your thoughts or any other aspect of your life. You apparently do not have the same respect for me. Blaming me, or "society", or anyone (or object) other than the guilty party is at best misplaced aggression and is not appreciated. There are (or used to be) rights, and there are responsibilties. There is crime, and there is punishment. You want to dictate what is necessary to "feel safe" by legislative prohibition or restriction on possession of an object that you find offensive by the people at large, based on what someone might do. Such reactions turn the idea of innocent until proven guilty upside down. Your low regard for provisions in the Bill of Rights that you don't like is obvious. You might choose not to own or carry a particular item, and that is your affair. You might choose to disregard or waive a right once considered most valued by free men, and that, too, is your business, your affair, your problem. You start blaming me for the criminal acts of others and advocating for the infringement of my rights, then we have a problem.
It will also be interesting to see your reaction to proposals or attempts to prohibit or restrict rights that you do actually value.
(Note: At some point in there, they like to go into what I call the "rocket launcher" argument, sometimes throwing in the NBC issue in a further effort to ridicule. It goes something like this ...)
So! I suppose you think people should be able to have rocket launchers, bazookas, RPGs, grenades - hell, why not nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons while we're at it. You're crazy!
We haven't even come to an agreement on basic infantry small arms - or their definitions - so there is no point in moving along to other items. More importantly, if we cannot agree on what a right is, what it means to have a right, and the critical distinction between a right and a privilege, then there is no point in moving along to issues of crime and punishment.
(On and on it goes ...)
-----------
Regardless of how - or whether - you choose to approach this subject with friends, relatives, coworkers or any others, at the least it can help folks clarify where along the gun control spectrum they fall.
"Whattaya need with a ..."
"I don't see what anyone needs with a ..."
It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.
Last edited:
