Facebook and Gun Control debates!

[MrJog]

I wish we could get more people to learn about firearms before passing such judgments. I'm afraid to push too hard when it comes to these guys. How well do you guys maintain composure when dealing with your anti gun friends? (if you have any)

http://www.facebook.com/MisterJog/posts ... re_comment

[VACoastie]

No anti-gun friends here, at least non that are vocal about it. Me, my Chief and another two of my guys from work are all gun totin, NRA/GOA members who talk about the latest edition of guns n ammo at work haha. I've got a pretty good group of folks around me I'd say. Same on facebook. As soon as libs started spouting nasties about gun owners, I shot back with postings on my facebook and got a decent amount of likes, comments, and friendly debates from my people.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Reverenddel]

The only Anti-gun folks I have around me are co-workers, and after we defeated their emotional stances, over, and over, and over again, they sit silently.

If I find someone in my outside world whose Anti-gun? I generally answer their questions, respond politely, and be nice.

Till it's time to NOT be nice.

Then? I use their own emotions against them, and make them so frothing spittle mad, they say something stupid, and kill their own argument.

[wpoppert]

I've had a few debates -- one ongoing with an old college classmate (and a retired submariner! He should know better!) None of my opponents thus far have been able to refute facts, they just say that we have to do something (while admitting that their proposals won't work). I also sent a note to one of my cousins who posted something about banning pistol ammo. I was very kind and respectful, but explained to her why that was a poor idea on many levels. I never got a response, but she has refrained from posting anything about firearms since. I don't know if you can convince many of these people, though. They are willfully ignorant.

[mamabearCali]

We had a rough Christmas to say the least. My In-laws are very anti-gun and their version of debate is to shout as loud as they can over anything you wish to say and interrupt you when you do try to say something. I think I was able to say three sentences in the whole debate while being blamed for the deaths of children. It was an emotional outburst that had little to do with facts. I even tried to say "look I love you and I don't want to fight with you." No dice...as a gun owner I was as responsible for the deaths of those children as if I had pulled the trigger myself.

I don't think there is a way to deal with that sort of emotionalism.

[WRW]

We had a rough Christmas to say the least. My In-laws are very anti-gun and their version of debate is to shout as loud as they can over anything you wish to say and interrupt you when you do try to say something. I think I was able to say three sentences in the whole debate while being blamed for the deaths of children. It was an emotional outburst that had little to do with facts. I even tried to say "look I love you and I don't want to fight with you." No dice...as a gun owner I was as responsible for the deaths of those children as if I had pulled the trigger myself.

I don't think there is a way to deal with that sort of emotionalism.

"What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it."

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ShotgunBlast]

I just try to nullify the emotion as much as I can since that's all their argument is based on. Anyone can go round and round until everyone's blue in the face, but it's kinda hard to dispute facts.

[Kreutz]

We had a rough Christmas to say the least. My In-laws are very anti-gun and their version of debate is to shout as loud as they can over anything you wish to say and interrupt you when you do try to say something.

Italians? Just a hunch. Never argue with them at a dinner table; you can lose an eye when they start wildly gesticulating with a sharp metal utensil in their hands.

X_0

As for me, I've been doing the FB rounds, but haven't had anything get nasty or vitriolic,though a small number of people unfriended me, though I got some new people too.

When dealing with anti-2A types if it gets petty you already lost, just dust off your shoes and move on.

[mamabearCali]

Yep they are Italian.....my husband lost a few friends on Facebook,but no one he card about. People who would not give him the time of day in HS wanted to chastise him. No loss there.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[gunderwood]

I just skimmed it, but I would point out the following since your friend is very focused on the historical implications of the 2nd Amendment.

First, most firearms of that era were not breech loading, they were muzzle loaded. Modern firearms are mostly breech loading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breech-loading_weapon
Thus, I can imply your friends actual knowledge of both history and firearms is very limited.

Second, breech loading firearms were not outside of the founders experience when crafting the 2nd Amendment as they were invented approx. in the 14th Century (assuming the wikipedia link is accurate, but this really is a minor point).

Third, the concept of cartridge to aid in the rapid reloading of a firearm pre-dates our country by centuries as well. In fact, the common muskets of the era typically used cartridges. Granted the technology for the modern variant of the cartridge happened a bit later, but it did happen within one generation of the Revolution. Namely, percussion caps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartridge_%28firearms%29

Most importantly, we should look at the arms the Colonists actually did have and use not just during the Revolution, but the War of 1812 since presumably they'd have had time to sort out what the 2nd Amendment practically meant by then. During the Revolution, the Colonists had only a relative few of the current military arms. However, the rifles they possessed were actually superior to the average military arm in many ways. This is not unlike today where civilians have a whole host of common chambering and enhancements that while the modern military could use they choose not to due to cost and the general lack of training with small arms (outside of our most elite units). Furthermore, they had much, much more than that. When the British were marching on Lexington and Concord, it wasn't just to capture some hunting rifles. The British were mostly interested in the large cannons, including mobile variants, along with the huge powder (not measured in pounds, but barrels for such cannons) and shot (not measured in grains, but actual pounds). These cannon were capable of bombarding a city like Boston from long range. For all intents and purposes these were modern artillery; the logical ancestors of things like the 105s and 155s we use today...including the mobile variants. The few cannons the British did capture were because the roads/weather made it near impossible to move due to their size and weight. Just in case it's not clear, the British were not searching for private hunting or home defense rifles, they were searching for military supplies!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington_ ... a_supplies

Things didn't change much for the following generation, nor did they try to change it. The only Federal firearm law from the founding until 1934 was a militia regulation which requires the keeping of military arms, not the prohibiting thereof. Second Militia Act of 1792: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 (please note, one YEAR after the Second Amendment was ratified!).

During the War of 1812, there warships called Privateers (existed during the Revolution too, but much more limited), which were really private ships armed with sea going cannons/artillery. Literally, the modern equivalent of a privately owed destroyer. Generally, we didn't have large warships, even as a country, until much later (huge cost) and those would basically be the logical equivalent of a modern battleship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer

The examples go on and on that the Founders intended the people to possess military arms so that their government could never become tyrannical or at least they'd have a fighting chance. Besides, governments typically care very little about people hunting and defending themselves, but they care greatly about any arms that may in the future be used to contest their unlawful power grabs. The 2nd Amendment, as a prohibition against government, only makes sense in this way. If they had intended for the people to only possess hunting or self-defense arms, they could and would have said so. However, they intentionally used words like militia and bearing of arms as military terms. It's absurd to suggest that an Amendment supposedly specifying rights retained by the people (as the rest do, except the 10th) would permit or grant the government the power to possess arms itself in a military function. Even the leading common-law and VA constitutional law scholar of the founders era (so much so that it is THE reference SCOTUS uses for original intent) stated:

In footnotes 40 and 41 of the Commentaries, Tucker stated that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment was not subject to the restrictions that were part of English law: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ame ... nstitution

The Second Amendment is under attack and will remain so until we reclaim it's original intent. It's not about your hunting rifles, although they are covered. It's not about your CC handgun, but that's covered too. The intent always was for law abiding Americans to own military arms to prevent a tyrannical government from oppressing the people, PERIOD. Until we unite and win on that principle, this insidious debate will continue on and we will continually be enslaved bit by bit.

[dorminWS]

@ Gunderwood:

+1

It is also worth noting that most if not all of the Founding Fathers were opposed to the federal government even having a standing army at all. The idea that the people's right to keep and bear arms was subordinate to or lesser than the "military" is ludicrous.

[MNMGoneShooting]

I pissed off all my relatives and just ended up killing my facebook account. I tweet instead

[GeneFrenkle]

And the Founding Fathers probably knew about the Puckle Gun, so auto weapons were not sci-fi stuff to them. It was more of a question about manufacturing and cartrige maturity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[gunderwood]

And the Founding Fathers probably knew about the Puckle Gun, so auto weapons were not sci-fi stuff to them. It was more of a question about manufacturing and cartrige maturity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

Learned something new! Thanks.

All of these things were around and it's a myth that the Founders were somehow ignorant of these technologies and thus the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply. It's just ignorant posturing to justify a preconceived notion while attempting to appear like a well reasoned argument. A simple way to put it is this...

We already know how to make carbon-fiber (or electric or whatever currently limited technology) cars and in fact already have. However, they're in very, very limited use not because the average person isn't aware of them, but because of the technological and cost difficulties in manufacturing them today. If you can build an electric car that runs for 1,000 miles on a charge, recharges to full capacity in 15mins, and costs $10k you will have no problem selling them by the boat load! It's not ignorance, nor a lack of imagination, but rather a lack of current technical means...yet, we all know we'll eventually get there and beyond.

[KaosDad]

Well, I had one anti FB "friend" (just a business aquaintence) who, after the Sandy Hook horror, said; "I hope your children are the next to die." Took a screen shot & unfriended.

Anyone else, it's easy - I wait until they spew a "fact" and respond with "citation, please." I can count on silence.

[MrJog]

Nice info Gunder.

[Mindflayer]

"Regulated" doesn't mean what people think it means. If someone is going to pull the black powder argument (invalid, BTW), they need to understand what regulated means for that time - trained and well disciplined. You can't pick and choose meanings. At that point, your argument is invalid and worthless.