Anti gunner question? - Page 3
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49

Thread: Anti gunner question?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Oregon City, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    65
    In my experience questions like these are always around "why do you need X to hunt" my answer is always - the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. I'm generalizing, but this is usually incomprehensible to someone outside the US (for many in the US as well but my experience here is usually with Canadians as my family is from there). For them the only possible reason for a civilian to own a gun is to hunt and therefore they see anything that doesn't look like a traditional hunting rifle as not needed. I've never seen them be able to shift their frame of reference away from "guns only needed by civilians for hunting" and without doing so they will never "get it"

  2.   
  3. #22
    Second amendment was not written to go hunting. It was to protect us from the government.

  4. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by fyrbug44 View Post
    What type of retort do any of you use against an anti gunner when the subject comes up "why do you need an assault rifle, they should be for the military only"?
    Can you answer that question truthfully? I hear responses and see posts all over the place wanting to know how to answer when asked this or other type questions. If you don't know the answer then you must not need it. I don't want to sound like I am mocking you or anything but you sound like you don't know. I bought a pickup one time and someone asked me why. I politely answered because I wanted it. He looked at me and said that is about the best reason I know of.

    Are you ashamed of your rifle or are you trying to justify it? My wife recently told me, "You get more fun out of working on the gadgets and stuff fixing up your ATV than you do actually riding it". She was probably correct and understands it. If you find a gun that you want or decide you just have to have then the only person you have to justify it to is yourself, or in some cases your wife. If someone asks you why you have something and you can't tell them then why do you have it? Because I want it, or like it, or enjoy it or whatever is fine if you realize it. I have learned over the years (a lot more than most of you) that if you have to try to come up with reasons why you have something and work at justifying it then you shouldn't have it.

    I have always wanted an Aston Martin and if ever I get the money I am going to get me one. There is no possible justification for me to get it other than I want it. If someone asks why you need an AR-15 tell them you don't need it but you wanted it and enjoy shooting it or just looking at it. There are very few people that can convince me that they have any need for one so don't even try to make up some BS about why you need it along with a 8-32x60 scope. You want it, can afford it and like it is all that is needed. Otherwise you are just digging a hole and playing right into their trap.

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    An Alternate Reality, I Assure You...
    Posts
    5,115
    I'll let them state their opinion or whatever they want to say. Then I tell them...

    Much too long to type, but I assure you... it's a well thought out statement about how
    1. It's our right as Americans... just b/c you don't like it doesn't mean others agree with you.
    2. There are no "bad" firearms... only bad people. If a criminal can't shoot you, he'll stab you, if he can't stab you he'll beat your head in with a bat, and if he can't do that he'll beat your face in with his fiist.
    3. It is my choice to which weapon I choose for my own reasons... not yours.
    4. I express to them that the Founders understood the only true way the people had over their gov't was arms... without arms a gov't is free to do as it pleases with a people defenseless. It's the only absolute we the people have to decide our countries fate.
    5. Then I'll ask them why it's okay for people to own fast motorcycles(I do), fast cars, and other percieved dangerous vehicles? Why fast food is still legal even though it contributes to more poor health related deaths than you can count? Why it's legal to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol, both of which are very dangerous to you and others health?

    Then I'll state that these things are not dangerous until a human uses them incorrectly(except smoking and booze which are bad almost always). Objects like firearms, motorcycles, cars, and any other object isn't dangerous... people make them so.

    So then, shouldn't we actually ban PEOPLE??? As we are the most dangerous beings on this planet to our existance.

    Then I'll say that I own more firearms than you have teeth in your mouth, including what you call assualt rifles... and I have never murdered anyone, nor have the desire.

    My last statement will be one along the lines of this: Either way, the only way you or anyone else is going to take away my guns is by prying them from my cold dead hands.
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    [*]Don't be afraid to use sarcasm, mockery and humiliation. They don't respect you. There's no need to pretend you respect them.
    Operation Veterans Relief: http://www.opvr.org/home.html

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SE Florida
    Posts
    1,880
    Quote Originally Posted by fyrbug44 View Post
    What type of retort do any of you use against an anti gunner when the subject comes up "why do you need an assault rifle, they should be for the military only"?
    Because it's perfectly legal for me to own one and I enjoy it.
    (Insert random tough-guy quote here)
    "See my gun?? Aren't you impressed?" - Anonymous sheepdog
    The hardware is the same, but the software is vastly different.

  7. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by fyrbug44 View Post
    What type of retort do any of you use against an anti gunner when the subject comes up "why do you need an assault rifle, they should be for the military only"?
    Tell them it is not an assault rifle, but rather an anti-assault rifle, and that is why you own it.

  8. #27
    First I send them to Gun Facts - Gun Control | Facts | Debunk | Myths

    Second, I tell them to ask me the question again after they've read the document so we can have an intelligent talk on the subject.

    I usually never hear from them again, but if I do, I ask if they read the doc, particularly the assault weapon myths section.

    If they did not, I'll say something like if they can't cope with a few pages of documents to learn something then I can't cope with their stupid questions.

    That usually ends it one way or another. They either learn something or stop bothering me. Arguing is a waste of time.

  9. #28
    This question was asked of me just two weeks ago.
    1. I wanted one.
    2. I like to shoot and compete. (This led to another discussion.) 3 Gun is a blast! The person had no idea anything like this existed. Nor did they know about Cowboy Shooting, IDPA, or IPSC. Now they do. I asked if they wanted me to take them the next time out. They still haven't decided. I will ask until they tell me to stop.

    Psalm 82:3-5

  10. #29
    Great question.. Good (mostly) answers. Really liked yours CapGun. I'll try to remember that one.

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado / Colorado
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Mustang View Post
    I usually show them a photo of an M1-Garand. It is pretty, has a nice wooden stock and to someone who has little to no experience with firearms resembles a hunting rifle.

    Once I explain that that is the Gun we won WWII with and that it is significantly more powerful than an AR-15 it tends to open their eyes a bit.

    But for the most part I have given up arguing with anti-gun folk. Their arguements are based entirely on emotion. If a gun looks scary then it IS scary. Attempting to explain that an AR-15 is no more powerful than any other gun chambered in .223 Remington is a losing gambit because they are not playing the same game we are.

    Attempting to explain to someone for whom the government is a comforting pancea that the REAL purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure the other rights of the people through force against a tyranical government, or that the Battle of Lexington and Concord occured as a result of attempts by the British to confiscate the arms and poweder of the colonists and is an example of the same is useless.

    Try showing these two pictures to an anti-gunner




    Then ask which one should be banned.

    The top rifle is chambered in .577 Tyranosaur one of the most powerful shoulder fired rounds in the world.

    The bottom is of course the ubiquitous M-4 carbine available in a semi automatic civilian version.

    I can about guarantee that the anti gunner will pick the bottom rifle.
    Then show them these




    The largest round in the second picture is the same as the SMALLEST round in the first picture!
    The smallest round in the second picture is of course a .223 Remington (5.56 NATO) the round shot by the M-4 pictured above. (I know the .223 and 5.56 are not exactly the same)
    Good call, Doc. Very true. My 338 Winchester will cause a LOT more damage that a .223, and it is NOT an assault rifle. A kid recently accidentally killed a friend with a .177 calibre air rifle. It wasn't an assault rifle!

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast