Yes, this is really something my own mother posted on Facebook. I’ve tried to use logic and reason to get her to understand my point of view when it comes to firearms and the right to defend yourself against evil, but we’re talking about a woman who treats the Huffington Post like gospel. She’s one of the many Democrats who are low information voters when it comes to gun rights, only reading the party-approved bullet points without actually seeking to understand exactly how crappy the proposed gun control legislation actually is. She sees “universal background checks” and thinks it’s a good idea, without any thought as to the repercussions of the details of the specific legislation — she just wants it passed because “it’s the right thing to do.” I tried to make that point, but it’s apparently fallen on deaf ears. So I ask you: how would you counter this argument?
you can’t argue with stupid
they will bring you down to their level and win with experience.
Aging does that with some folks.
BTW, that’s a double entandre; the with experience part.
I no longer try to reason with people who have that mindset, especially family. The emotional attachment is too big, whereas I can politely argue all day with someone I don’t know or care about.
Actually Nick, you can’t argue, or at least win, with your mother. She probably still sees you as her baby.
This.
Can’t win ’em all. Identify who you can and cannot sway. Those you can’t, forget about it. No amount of talking will convince some people. Those who can be swayed, use caution and remember–you can’t push someone toward yourself.
No need to argue when she calls him to bring over his FN 3-gun setup because the cops don’t respond in a timely fashion.
Nick: Your mom needs a (range?) date with Chuck Norris.
Switch to de-caff dude, we’re talking about Nick’s mother.
It may be worth it to just accept that nothing will change her mind.
I’ve been there, and tried that. I failed, but not for a lack of trying.
I fought with my mother when I was a teen. I regret it to this day.
All I wanted as an adult son, was peace between my mother and me. Life’s too damn short to worry about changing your mother’s mind. Appreciate all she has done for you, kiss her on her little stubborn forehead and say, “Thank you for my life,” and give her a hug.
Advice: Don’t waste another precious minute over it.
I had this argument with my family 2 days ago. It wound up with us all calling each other freaking retards.
Did the notion of “Cars are not Constitutionally protected” come up?
Alcohol, not cars.
Where does the constitution say you can own whatever you want, without any restrictions whatsoever?
Very plainly in amendment 9&10. The constitution is about specifically describing what the Federal gov’t can do (and later amended to what the States can’t do). But it was never about listing ALL the rights the people have, which are nearly unlimited.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
we have a cousin that is a obama/clinton lover and he about cried when i proved to him that:
1.) clinton was a drug-dealing, money-laundering son of a bitch
2.) obama is equally complicit as bush when it comes to dirty little imperial secrets like torture, assassination, etc.
that was before we got into the new laws regarding government and internal surveillance
My wife’s family, however, are Russian descendants. They sneer at the idea of peaceful utopias and believe that peaceful solutions are secured by the end of a rifle barrel (which furthers the stereotype that ALL Russians are cynical ;). A bit harsh for my more democratic sensibilities, but nevertheless i fear they may be right.
Nobody else that is really anti-gun in my family. I think plenty of people have lost friendships and good relationships with family members over the past four months. The civil war was no different and the next one will not be either. Literally brother against brother.
Those Russian relatives are in good company–that’s the whole point of the Second Amendment, after all.
I have some Russian guns. They are cynical, but they won’t fail you.
Family…got to love them.
Or at least run over them with your “registered” liberal car,lol, Randy
To use the car on public streets maybe. I need no such license or registration to drive on my property. But the car argument is broken regardless.
Also…. driving is a privilege… owning a gun is a right.
Actually, the founders understood that the constitution only named certain rights, and it did not necessarily name them all. That’s why all powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the states are to be left to the states or the people. At least under the Jeffersonian mindset I doubt the founders would have agreed that you should essentially have to pay to use a piece of your property. Stated differently, just because it’s not a part of the bill of rights does not mean it’s not a natural right that should be protected.
You’re not paying to use your own property – you’re paying to use the public roadways. If you want to drive back and forth in your driveway, or bounce around your pastures in an old ranch truck, or run a race car around a private track, you don’t need a license or registration or anything.
Driving is a right, not a privilege. Sorry you’ve bought into the propaganda that it isn’t. You do, of course need to follow the rules of the road, or else you will be a hazard to the public. I see no reason why a car or driver needs to be licensed, however. Well, maybe smog checks for the purpose of protecting the environment, but that’s it.
If you drive unsafely, you should be fined or sent to jail (depending on the severity of your actions). But the right to drive is simply the modern version of having the right to move around on the planet.
That’s an interesting argument, and I would like to hear more. I’ve used the “driving is a privilege” argument for some time now, and you’re making me stop and think. Owwww! 🙂
In my state driving is a PRIVILEGE, and so stated.
The difference between a privilege and a right is that the privilege can be “surrendered” by the owner, but it can also be revoked by the state for any reason they deem justified. The right can only be “surrendered” by the owner of said right, not revoked by the state.
When it comes to driving, eyesight and age are common revocation reasons.
In both cases of right and privilege, you can “surrender” them by committing a felonious crime. The right itself cannot be revoked by the state.
It may not be right which is protected by the constitution or the state, but that doesn’t stop the fact that it is a natural right. Calling it a privilege just seems wrong. Is it a privilege bestowed by the state to walk or ride a bicycle? Considering it a right to drive doesn’t protect you from driving like an ass – I’m saying you have a right to drive while following the commonly accepted rules of the road.
Anyhow, the issues that come up are ensuring that people know what they are doing, stopping jackasses from crashing their cars into you without insurance, preventing people who have a habit of driving drunk from continuing to do so, and so on. You could probably think of some new systems from scratch, but eventually you’ll see that the system we currently have works fairly well with the exception of the 32,000 deaths each year.
And in effect, the system is already set up so that you don’t need a license to drive. As long as you don’t break the rules, you shouldn’t be stopped by the police and no one will ever know. And if you do break the rules and you are caught, the system will be harder on you – so perhaps you can look at the license as being a membership card to the leniency club.
There are a couple places where this line of reasoning can lead – perhaps you will go down the path of the sovereign citizens and forever be fighting the system.
I prefer the idea where I will accept gun registration and licensing, provided that weapons are as commonplace as cars. Once gun safety and marksmanship are taught alongside driver’s ed in the schools, then I think I could relax my stance on the state prohibiting certain individuals from owning weapons.
The future will throw a monkey wrench in the works when self-driving cars become the norm.
The car registration argument needs to be laid to rest. Cars are registered for the purpose of COLLECTING TAXES. Roads and bridges must be built and maintained; this costs a lot of money. The registration and subsequent taxation of cars is one way to pay for this. Only if for some reason towns and states built shooting ranges for all their citizens would i see a sound comparison of gun and automobile registration.
Private sector could build all the roads. Generally speaking the government has granted itself a monopoly over this. The only reason we have liscence and registration is as a revenue raiser. I would say I shouldn’t have to do either when it comes to a car. But the liberal response would be, “if we didn’t have liscensing and registration, well that would just be anarchy.” anarchy being an incredibly misused word.
The private sector does build all the roads. The government just bids them out. Have you missed the regular-as-clockwork bid rigging scandals which most states experience?
Erm.. we do pay Federal Taxes/Fees on all new firearm/ammo sales. It’s called the Pittman-Robertson Act:
http://www.fws.gov/southeast/federalaid/pittmanrobertson.html
“…Cars are registered for the purpose of COLLECTING TAXES. ”
And failure to pay taxes means revocation of the ability to drive.
This is how you get to confiscation of guns from the car defense…. A gun registry allows the government to know who has what. A gun registry, just like a car registry, allows the government to impose fees and/or taxes on ownership. Failure to pay those taxes and fees means removal of the legal ability to use said registered objects.
Or you can go the other way….. You only need to pay the registration fees if you operate the car on the public right-of-way. If my guns, like my farm car, are on private property then I am exempt from those registration fees. I will gladly keep my guns on private property if it means I don’t have to register them.
Well said sir!
Your saying a car & a gun isn’t the same? Don’t tell sarah, too much reality at once isn’t good, Randy
I like to argue that there is not a segment of the population seeking to outlaw cars. Once someone wants to outlaw cars, yes, I would have a problem with registering them.
You can’t. Unless your mother is faced with a real world situation where her life is at stake or the life of a loved one she will probably never change. Love her because she’s your mother. But don’t follow this particular teaching of hers.
Your mother is under the spell or Normalcy Bias. You have my sympathies; I know how you feel.
Foghorn: have you tried hiring someone you know to try and break into her house while she’s home?
Because that’s a brilliant idea!
Didn’t I see that plot on I Love Lucy? And didn’t it wind up with every one going to jail?
Maybe licensing and registration of cars is a good idea. After all, they kill a lot more people than guns.
There are times I find that it’s better to just keep your mouth shut.
When a Toyota Camry is involved in a hit-and-run, they don’t ban Toyota Camrys.
Let’s look at the insurance bit for a second… Say there are 30,000 firearm deaths per year. Even if you don’t subtract the gang-banger violence, DGU, etc… let’s say each of those 30,000 families gets a $1M “settlement”. That’s a total of $30,000,000,000/year that firearms deaths “costs” society.
Divide that by the 80 million+ gun owners (gotta be more than that by now), and you average $375 per gun owner. Would you pay $375/year to keep the gun grabbers off your back? I sure would (but we know that wouldn’t shut them up…).
I wouldn’t pay them a dime personally…Why reward them for infringing on our rights?
There are a lot of reasons why insurance for gun owners is a good idea (most especially that, if the statistics brought out here are right, you could probably divide your proposed premium by at least ten for home defenders and CCW), but there are a few showstoppers why a mandatory scheme won’t fly; mostly that the hard-core antigunners will take it as a concession and exploit further, and a scheme like this highlights law-abiding and honourable owners. It *should* be a mark of pride… but I can see why it would also be a real risk if someone decided to confiscate all them awful “assault guns” and started with the soft target of the law-abiding and honest. (Still got the T-shirt…)
It’s a shame because in isolation it addresses many concerns; I used to think it would be a good solution, but sadly there are few easy answers in life…
I counter this argument by challenging said retard to come physically make me comply. Being 5’10” and 230lb (mostly upper body) tends to shut that argument down fast when logic does not work.
Inter arma enim silent leges
You can’t reason with people who have no reason.
you would beat up your own mother?
No, my mother is the ultimate libertarian. It gets my point across. Ultimately, all laws imply the use of force to guarantee compliance. That’s my point. Too many liberals forget that to get our guns, they will have to find enough thugs to kick all our doors. Good luck. While I mistrust cops, even I admit that most of them are decent people and would not carry out blatantly tyrannical orders.
Holy crap 5 10??? We gotta badass over here.
230 lbs in a 5’10” frame is pretty big from my point of view.
Holy crap 5 10??? We gotta badmamba jamba over here.
My company First Sergeant was 5’8″ and 260. Made me look like a stick. 230 is not all that impressive looking if you’re 6’4″ at 5’10” I tend to be a bit more intimidating.
How bout 6’2″ and 265?
Given my size and general appearance, anybody that tries to threaten me physically probably isn’t thinking straight. I’m pretty sure my size has either prevented or helped me defuse a few confrontations that might otherwise have gone sideways.
But I’m always surprised when people say they were scared of me before they got to know me, because I don’t *feel* intimidating. Mostly I don’t want to be.
I figure if an argument about rights and ethics ends with physical intimidation, you’re probably doing it wrong. (But hey, if the other side goes for threats, you might as well go one better; if they’re going to be that way, intimidate all you want.)
@Ing
It’s not really intimidation so much as a reminder that all law is based on using force to compel compliance. By voting for a law to take away my rights they are essentials saying that they have no problem killing me if I don’t comply. When I remind them of this fact and point out that many better men than they have tried to kill me, the conversation gets a little more civil. Ultimately it’s all about what we as free people are willing to accept. My answer is simple. This far and no further.
Yes, there is that. It’s easy to say ban this or confiscate all of those when there’s no thought put into how it’s going to be done, who will do it, and how many people on both sides of the issue might die in the process.
Nothing inherently wrong with intimidation. Your original comment sounded like that’s how you end all your arguments, but I see that’s not really what you meant.
Sometimes it’s necessary as a defensive tactic — pretty handy in cases when people start getting out of line. I’m thinking of situations like that incident that was posted here several weeks back, where some anti-gun lunatic followed a lady through a parking lot, ranting and screaming at her for having a pro-2A sticker on her car; having some physical intimidation on her side would have brought some much needed civility and fairness into the proceedings.
I do find it ironic that the very people who claim to be most peaceful and tolerant are usually so eager to invoke the implied violence of the state in pursuit of (what they call) nonviolence.
Ing, you sound like a pretty close match for me, size wise. My size and the fact that I’m ugly and not particularly well groomed has caused numerous individuals over the years to back off and leave me alone.
Really worked to my advantage when I used public transit dailey.
Vendetta: You seem very proud of your faux-sarcastic observation to post it twice, with different wording. Until you can learn to actually be clever, though, it might behoove you to try and show a little modesty.
Rights Privileges. You have a natural right to self preservation, there is no corresponding right to vehicular transport.
OR
I don’t see the gov. trying to license walking, walking insurance, walking registration…
+1
What amendment protects the right to a car? I always seem to forget.
The 9th:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The 9th which makes clear that common law rights are not rendered null & void by the enumeration of other rights. The common law right to travel is well established. As far as I know, it is one of the only rights in which the method of exercise has been restricted with new technology. Think in terms of the antis saying 2A only protects muskets.
My mother is a anti-gun liberal too so I feel your pain.
1) you have no constitutional right to a car
2) the government already poorly enforces car registration and insurance requirements because it’s underfunded and people who drive without insurance and get into accidents have zero liability. why would we replicate a broken system for gun ownership?
3) neither the gov’t nor criminals are afraid of your car
No offense, but you’re better off trying to teach quantum physics to a sea turtle.
I have a sea turtle eligible for a math PhD. Quantum physics is within easy reach.
Liberals and reason, though, neither are in the same cosmos.
There is only one side on this 2nd Amendment argument who is fear-mongering.
It’s the side who says law abiding citizens are the problem and we need to criminalize & disarm them to save our children. It is not the side that says the world is full of bad folks like Adam Lanza and we want the means to defend ourselves and our families from them.
As far as what the picture says comparing having to license and insure a car with the same requirement for a gun, I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution that guarantees anyone the right to own or drive a car. Therefore, the government can regulate that any way it wants to, whether you agree with it or not.
However, when they start regulating something that’s explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution and limiting, taxing, and otherwise restricting the exercise of that right, that’s when they’ve gone too far. If liberals want to give up their rights, that’s their business but they have no right to demand I give up mine in the process.
Ask about regulating, taxing, and registering her mouth…
I’m of the “I agree, there doesn’t need to be car registration as long as there are road.usage fees.” Right now the government double dips…
+1
Ask her how she would feel if the government came to her house and confiscated her car in the name of public safety
Nick,
Tell her that there is nothing in the Constitution about the right to keep and bear automobiles. Ask her if she would like to be forced to register and get a license to exercise her rights guaranteed by the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.
It probably won’t help…
Stop trying. The “politics and religion” rule applies primarily where family is concerned, IMO. Those relationships are more important than winning. (Which you are!) Also, FWIW, when someone’s last name is “Leghorn,” blocking out her first name does pretty much nada to shield her Facebook account from search results.
Tell her that you can buy a hummer with cash money park it in your backyard and only drive it off road then give it to your cousin with he makes parole and it’s all legal.
And nothing this is protected by the bill of rights like gun ownership is.
It’s a civil right mom!
My mother’s a genuinely nice and wonderful woman, big on emotional intelligence and low on practical intelligence. She’s the very example of someone who’s anti not because they really believe it, but because their only exposure is lying mass media. Her I can tolerate, and I’m actually starting to win her over.
But I have an aunt who’s a willful leftist stooge, cousins who are ivory tower elitists, and a father who’s gone to the dark side thanks to residence in both NYC and Paris. I’ve had arguments with them that ended with me literally telling them the long version of “FOAD” and I don’t regret it.
Evil is evil, enemies are enemies, and those who would be petty tyrants, oppressors, and steal my rights earn no more leeway just because they share blood.
If it’s your mother, stop. There is no way you can win this. Dave Ramsey calls it “powdered butt syndrome”. They have powdered your butt, therefore you can’t possibly know better than them. Get someone else to do it.
you don’t have to register a car or have a license to drive it if you drive it on your own property. Once you use it on the government owned streets, you do need to get all that.
A car is a sometimes dangerous convenience. The right to defend oneself is a natural right. What we have learned in the history of man is that some humans endeavor to disarm other humans in order enslave them and murder them if they do not accept enslavement. Until and unless human nature changes, every person in the world has the natural right to defend himself from other humans. License, registration and insurance sound reasonable until one examines the history of licensing and registration: these have been used to disarm and murder populations all over the world, so it is good to stand vigilant against these measures. Insurance sounds reasonable, except for the fact that the people that attempt to impose this requirement on gun owners are usually the ones that try to circumvent and degrade the Second Amendment. We’re not stupid. We know what they want to do, which is why we oppose them whenever we can. If everyone in the country was armed and respected the Second Amendment, maybe we seriously entertain these thinly veiled attempts at disarmament. But obviously , we can’t and won’t.
Great points.
about 15% of drivers drive around without insurance, and many without registration or a valid license (in Maryland anyway, results by state differ). According to the best statistics I could find based on disenfranchised voter rolls, there are about 6 million felons … and if they all have weapons, that means about 6% of “gun owners” have guns illegally.
A law is not a magic wand. You can get Heroin and Coke on the street, as well as illegal guns, launder the money… heck drug cartels have access to full auto military weapons, and you definitely cant get that on the street. People smuggle cigs from the south to the north due to the excessive taxes in the north. For every law there is a way to circumvent it.
passing stupid laws may feel good, but in the end its just stupid. If it were that easy to cure violence, the problem would have been solved hundreds of years ago.
Whenever the phrase “common sense” is attached to pending legislation it’s rarely sensible.
Simple. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it state “the right to own and operate a automobile”.
Your car is not a right.
Ask your Mom this, Nick: What if the Republicans were leading a nationwide push to make licenses and insurance a requirement to vote?
You’ll also note that YOUR license & YOUR registration & YOUR insurance have never prevented a single person from being maimed or killed by a drunk driver.
But that’s not the point, is it?
Ask her if she drinks wine.
Because alcohol is a far greater threat to society than guns are. And there is currently no licensing requirements to buy alcohol, no registration, no finger printing, and you don’t have to buy insurance to buy and consume alcohol.
Consider alcohol:
Drunk Driving deaths
Alcohol fueled domestic abuse of spouse and children
Public costs related to alcohol related injuries
Public costs related to chemical dependencies/treatments
Alcohol related loss of productivity/Man hours
How many children of alcoholics grow up to be alcoholics and/or abusers
and on and on and on…
And there is no benefit to alcohol other than “it’s fun”.
And it’s not protected in the freaking Constitution.
So if they’re all about protecting the kids…. then why even bother with guns when the obvious elephant is alcohol?
Why not ban alcohol?
Cause oh wait… we tried that.
I’d ask her if she ever enjoys a glass of wine. Why is she contributing to the alcohol epidemic. Why is she choosing to be a player in all this “Alcohol Violence” and shouldn’t we “Demand a Plan”. Or is she a law abiding alcohol owner/user? And would new restrictions only effect those people who actually obey the law and addicts would find a way to get booze anyway, and/or make it themselves?
Personally.. I’d love to see TTAG do and indepth comparison of alcohol and guns.
From the CDC:
Mortality
Number of alcoholic liver disease deaths: 15,990
Number of alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides: 25,692
EXCLUDING accidents and homicides…
That’s more than ALL gun deaths including suicides (which I’m sure some of those are drunk when they do it)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm
I’ve had this very argument many times.
1) You only need a driver’s license to drive the vehicle on a public road. You don’t need one to operate it on private property.
2) A vehicle only needs to be registered to be driven on a public road. It may be kept on private property or even transported over a public road on a flatbed or trailer without being registered (think race car).
3) You don’t need insurance in all States, I know you don’t in NH.
4) Just to throw one more in, there is no background check or even requirement to show ID to purchase a car.
So there you go.
I’ve had to educate my own mother quite a bit Nick, I feel your pain. My favorite was pulling out a Mossberg 590 and a M&P15-22 and asking which was the “assault rifle”, she identified the 15-22, I then explained how each functioned and showed her what a 12GA Slug looked like compared to .22lr, she saw the light. Patience is everything.
Agreed. I’ve found that when someone starts comparing guns and cars, it means they either have no idea what the laws are on guns, or thing the person they’re talking to doesn’t.
I’ll also add that if guns were treated like cars:
1. Automatic weapons would be ubiquitous. 2. Lots of people would have no idea how to operate a manual (bolt, pump, lever) action weapon. 3. All guns would be sold with a suppressor, and people who used a gun without one would be widely regarded as an inconsiderate jerk (and possibly guilty of a crime, depending on noise abatement laws). 4. Anyone could spend about half an hour taking a very simple written and practical test (no background check required) to get a concealed weapon permit, which would be good everywhere in the country.
And what do you suppose the equivalent of a commercial driver’s license would be? Crew-served weapons? Armored vehicles?
You nailed it Ken! You did, however, neglect to mention that ammo would be sold at convenience stores and firing ranges would outnumber golf courses.
If you’re close to your folks, and in this case your mom, it’s going to be tough. Both my folks are gone now but I still remember “discussions” in which I only avoided lapsing into calling my own mother an idiot by sheer strength of will. That’s how utterly stupid the anti-gun argument usually is. But … this was my mom, and I did indeed love her dearly. So, I backed off well before calling her an idiot, which in fact, she was when it came to guns. Emotion ruled with my mom, and with many more women than with men. It’s not “sexist” to say so; look at any statistical breakdown on gun issues and you’ll see that wide gulf between those who rely primarily on logic (men) and those who rely primarily on emotion (women).
Guys, this is why the disgusting tactic employed by the even more disgusting B. Hussein O’Bummer, of surrounding himself with parents of murdered school kids, was continued … even after there had been much discussion about how tasteless, tacky, and outright despicable it was to do that. Well, news flash here: O’Bummer also knew that many women would only see the tears and hear the quivering voices and that’s all they’d need to hear – from that day forward they were gonna vote anti-gun. And of course, guys like us watched the same display of low life tactics and were made nauseous that an American “president” would actually do such a thing. Anybody ever notice that this guy fights like a chick fights ? It’s all emotion and emotional appeals.
You can try to set aside the time you’ll need to talk with your mom about guns, but you’ll need to talk her language too. Maybe tell her about all the kids who are alive today because of a gun being handy. We’ve got to make that case since the lamestream media isn’t going to tell the truth about DGUs.
Maybe this is a question we should direct at those women among us who “get it” about guns. Winning many more women over to our side is so definitely worth it. A few million more American women, savvy about the 2nd Amendment and its importance … and we could actually kiss the gun control movement goodbye for a while.
Yes, bo the magnificent has done wonders with verbal taxidermy. Must be the hope & change he talked about, Randy
Logic and reality don’t often combine in the mind of a True Believer.
*More people are killed by cars than guns every year.
*More people are killed by drunk drivers than guns every year.
*More people are killed by bees than “assault weapons” every year.
*Case law clearly shows that driving a car is a privilege, not a legal right, much less a Constitutional right.
*Case law and historical study clearly show that gun ownership is a Constitutional right.
*Driving cars legally requires registration and insurance, yet how often are those laws ignored?
It would be interesting to compare the crime rate # of legal gun owners, crime rate of illegal gun owners/users, accident/death rate of legal car owners, and accident/death rate of illegal car owners. Hmmm…this could be another point piece on my website, though getting stats on the first 2 could prove difficult.
In any event, it’s tough to argue with an idiot/drunk/family member/whatever: even if you can get your point across [which is by no means assured], you probably still lost. So, I generally just keep my opinions to myself…and blog. 🙂
The constitutional argument doesn’t work on people who have no respect for the constitution. Of which the grabber has none. You need to make an argument that is real to them.
Not that it’ll have much effect, but there’s always the what-if game.
Since we’re on cars at the moment, what if the government starts interfering with the common right to freedom of movement by trying to ban vehicles that can hold more than 15 gallons of gas (law enforcement and licensed freight haulers exempted) or haul more than 6,000 lb. payload (licensed freighters excepted), and all vehicles that share two or more “street racing” features (spoilers higher than 3″, front air dams, scooped hoods, wide rims, low-profile tires, lowered suspension, racing stripes)? Oh, and since no state has a higher speed limit, maximum speed in all vehicles will be regulated to 85 mph (law enforcement excepted).
And what if all this was in response to a horrific crash caused by an insane young man who hijacked a Ford Econoline bus full of kids, sped through the school parking lot (where the speed limit is 5 mph), killing four teachers, and then drove it head-on into a semi, killing everyone aboard?
Oh, and also, these restrictions will prevent drunk driving.
So…who knows. It might work.
Do you need a background check to send a letter in the mail? Publish a community newspaper? Get an internet connection? No? Why not? What’s the harm that could come from putting limits and licensing requirements on your 1st Amendment Rights? If it reduces the number of ricin-laced-letters, wild conspiracy theories, and internet predators and hackers even 1%, isn’t that a good thing? Think of the children!
Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
Yup. I like to ask those who would restrict the 2nd Amendment if they would accept similar restrictions on any other parts of the Bill of Rights. Public speaking or publishing would only be allowed with a government permit. Exercising your religious beliefs would require registration, and you’d have to pick from a state-approved list of churches. Anyone failing a background check must permanently give up their protection against cruel and unusual punishment and unreasonable searches. Et cetera, et cetera…
You can’t counter Mom – just won’t happen – so move on. (I’m in the same boat.)
First of all you don’t “have” to license your car. You can own a car without licensing it. You can store it away and not drive it. Licensing only applies if you drive it regularly and depends how regularly. An antique can be licensed differently because it only travels to shows and gets driven once in a blue moon. Licensing also is dependent on what resources the car uses such as roads and public driveways. Its a backdoor tax in order to pay for such things. Essentially the government does not need 400 dollars a year to track a car, they need 400 dollars to pay for the freeway. If licensing and registration was all about tracking you and your car it would be less than 20 dollars for processing.
Since guns don’t use public resources in ownership then licensing and registration does not apply. Neither does the smog rules since they do not put out enough pollution to make a difference. If guns need registered, then so do kitchen knives, cell phones, pressure cookers, vacuum cleaners, and just about all other pieces of property that may harm or pollute the environment.
Depends on the state… $400?? That sounds prohibitive to me. My plate registration is about $50 a year.
Depends on the age and value of the vehicle. The newer the more expensive. In my state, all trucks are fixed price levels because the are deemed Agriculture oriented but a car 1/4 of the price is 400% the fees.
Yep. And the portion of the registration fees that is based on value (e.g. 62% of my 2005 Excursion’s CO reg fees) is essentially a property tax – that’s why it’s deductible on Form 1040, Schedule A, line 7.
If you just want to win the “Why can’t we treat guns the way we do cars?” argument then you need to google up those words and the name Dave Kopel. You will find one of the most well reasoned and worded demolitions of this stupid liberal argument once and for all.
Show it to your mom. She might not change her mind one bit, but then you’ll both know that the truth and facts don’t matter at all to her. Handing her a print out of Kopel’s argument will help you avoid having to call you dear mom, who you love, an idiot. That’s important too.
If I get a chance I’ll ask Dave about that, tx. We’re attending one of his local events next week.
Ask your mother if she thinks people should have to have a background check or gov’t-issued license in order to go on a date with a girl, teach your own children, write a newspaper article, or go to church. Fundamental human rights are fundamental. If I have the right to do something, that means it would be unjust for someone else to stop me from doing that thing, even if it is only to harass me with paperwork before finally granting permission.
Stupid is as stupid does.
I have given up on logic with these people. It is useless to point out that owning a car isn’t a civil right protected by the constitution. They only believe in their own civil rights, not the civil right of others.
“I’ve tried to use logic and reason to get her to understand my point of view when it comes to firearms and the right to defend yourself against evil,”
Nick,
You cannot overcome an irrational objection with a rational statement of facts. Why do you so keep punishing yourself? Your mother acts and reacts on an emotional level: she is operating on the “it makes me feel good therefore it is correct and true” level. If you are not going to bother to learn her language to communicate with her, why bother?
…but we’re talking about a woman who treats the Huffington Post like gospel.
Yeah, I’ve got one like that, too.
I’m just glad it’s not genetic.
“license reregistration and insurance”
Tell her this is only true if she wishes to operate it on the states roads in a nonemergency situation.
Unless you’re arguing that I should be allowed to set up my targets on the overpass it’s apples and oranges.
I have only done this once (never again!!). I actually drove my car in New York City. I think I could also drive it in Chicago and San Francisco if I wanted. When these places start to recognize my right to carry, the car comparison might be a little more relevant.
This one’s easy. Throw the same scenario back at her. However in this scenario tell her that some well-to-do parents let their son borrow the car while away at college. The parents leave it up to the kid to re-register and insure the vehicle. That person then chose not to register his car or insure it using stolen or fake tags to drive on the street with no one else the wiser. Then one day that guy mows down a bus full of kids because he has mommy/daddy issues likely stemming from a lifetime of having to listen to liberal bullshit.
Our liberal government, in an attempt to wave the bloody shirt, decides to try and ban several different models of cars, in fact they say all SUVs are now “assault vehicles” similar to the up armored types that carry diplomats to and from work overseas. The government also bans the personal sale of vehicles from one person to another as well as online or in person auto auctions.
At the same time, several states try to enact legislation that makes it virtually impossible for law abiding drivers to get a driver’s license. But the worst is the ban on high capacity gas tanks. The logic that if you only have a one gallon tank a maniac would be forced to refill half way through his pedestrian massacre.
Obviously, none of these measures are common sense and only negatively affect law abiding vehicle owners.
If your mom attempts a rebuttal ask her if she has a DNR then invite her out for a Sunday drive. : )
Don’t forget a ban on high capacity fuel tanks and luggage racks.
I’d start by explaining that the criminologists researching the topic have generally found that laws mandating firearm registration haven’t actually reduced violent crime. (Those looking for proof should review the studies following up on John Lott’s research: Some supported his claim that ‘loose’ gun laws actually reduce crime, a number of others felt that his data weren’t robust enough to claim any relationship between lax laws and violent crime, and two concluded that weak gun restrictions led to higher crime rates.)
Then explain the predictable logic of the anti-gun crowd: If the current laws aren’t working, more laws are needed. If gun crime remains high despite registration laws, “we need BETTER laws”. This is the logic that inexorably leads to eventual confiscation.
Theres nothing you can do, so don’t waste your time. just hide her car keys on election day, to loimit the damage to the rest of us.
The biggest problem here is that these fools can’t differentiate between a privilege and a right.
Tell them to name a right, something they value that they consider their freedom to do, whether it’s state an opinion, go to the bathroom, pray to their own God, whatever.
Right when they move to do it, tell them to stop. They’re not allowed to unless they ask you, the government, for permission. Tell them then that you won’t allow them to because it makes children unsafe. It’s just common sense. In fact, if the person in question is religious, the prayer one (freedom of religion) could be a powerful one.
Then hesitantly grant permission for them to pray, but cherry pick which words and phrases they can use (take out God of course). At last, give them a piece of paper symbolizing a form and tell them they’ll be able to pray in 6 weeks with a 200 dollar license…if the government feels like granting it.
If that doesn’t get across why a right is so different from a privilege, and thus so important, then the person is either a willful idiot or a tyrant. Either way, not worth associating with anymore, and you can wash your hands of it.
I was thinking along the same lines.
Society has brainwashed us to “be nice.” What we really should be doing is being polite and respectful … until someone is no longer polite or respectful to us.
I believe a simple, assertive response is all that is necessary. Tell the family member who is a gun grabber that their philosophy is patently offensive. It belittles people and robs them of their dignity.
And ask a final series of simple questions. Is a school yard bully wrong? Is it still wrong if the school yard bully asks nicely before threatening their victims? Is it still wrong if a gang is on the school yard bully’s side? How large does the gang have to be on the bully’s side until it is “okay” to bully the victims? Then why is it okay to bully citizens who wish to own firearms?
If you park it in your garage there would be no need for license, registration or insurance…..only to take it out in public do you need those……wouldn’t it be funny if the car got stolen and was used to commit some crime even though it was licensed, registered and insured? All right….Nick’s mom has convinced me…..we should ban all cars.
Cars are not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Its as stupid an argument as saying pressure cookers should be licensed.
Non-gun people are the ones who are paranoid and fear. They are the ones who don’t trust their law-abiding fellow citizens to choose how to protect themselves. MikeB(number number number) even admitted awhile back that they are afraid of us doing something crazy with our guns. The non-gun people are paranoid and afraid. Ask what she is afraid of and then listen and try to get her to see what she is afraid of.
Get a new mom. There are lots of Pro2A women who would love to have a fine upstanding Pro2A son.
Thankfully my mom is not anti, at least not to my face. The only family member that’s anti is my BIL. We do not discuss politics at family functions when I’m around because I will win the argument at all costs. No not through physical force, just through saying things that I believe are true but should not be said (his displays of suspect morals, his shit parenting and especially his shit parenting of an autistic child, the fact that his pool has tried to drown his children, etc, etc).
He says it better than I ever could.
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/we-need-to-regulate-cars-the-way-we-regulate-guns
Thanks for the link. I will be forwarding that one on.
I’ve loaded my rifle and it’s set in the corner behind the door in my bedroom for over 2 months now. It’s not shot anyone yet, I’m going to return it. I think it’s defective.
When is the last time you heard a politician want to take away your vehicle or limit it’s horsepower. Also, they don’t hate cars because of it’s looks and additional safety features (AR15s).
If it looks fast, it must be a danger to everyone!
Actually, former MO Senator John Danforth had what us motorcyclists call a ‘moment’ when he proposed horsepower limits on what he thought were sportbikes back in the early 90’s, as I recall. That didn’t go over very well.
by not using my weapons to defend anyone with obviously inferior genetics. (I kid).
“So I ask you: how would you counter this argument?”
With your mother simply ask: “How do you know that?”
With strangers you first must establish standing as decent and reasonable – someone they like. Then when they say something crazy, ask: “How do you know that?”
This is what I posted in response to my friend that image:
“Weird, I leave my gun unattended every day and it doesn’t do anything either. Requiring me to have insurance for it would not have any appreciable effect on the safe and legal use of my firearm beyond applying a series of financial hurdles to my ability to exercise a natural and constitutional right.
The only time my firearm becomes dangerous is if I choose to use it unlawfully and then guess what? Registration, licenses, and insurance don’t prevent me from doing so. Can we think of any other relevant examples of licensed, registered, insured objects that are frequently used for unlawful and dangerous purposes in spite of these requirements?
<———- (ahem)
Effective self defense is a natural right confirmed by the constitution, owning a car is a privilege conferred by economic status and not addressed by that document.
Bonus fun fact: Established case law has dictated that criminals cannot be required to register illegally possessed firearms or suffer the consequences for failing to do so due to their 5th amendment right to avoid self incrimination (Haynes v. U.S. – 1968). So if it doesn't apply to criminals then who exactly is registration meant to stop?"
Fortunately my friend, who does not agree with me on guns, is capable of reading dissenting opinions and at least appreciating the contribution of factual information relevant to the topic at hand. Some of her frothy-mouthed anti-gun associates not so much.
There is no Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing a God given right to own or operate a car. That is the difference.
I have a mom the same way. I just ask myself “what’s the point?” and say nothing. meanwhile she comes over to make my kids (older) lunch and has to move the rifles (locked, in their cases) off the kitchen table since that’s where we stage them for cleaning.
Looks like you’ve got one of those “skip-a-generation” problems.
But she’s your mother, gotta love her!
The only opinions on the Second Amendment I’m interested in are from those who believe that it means what it says.
I’d start by getting new parents.
Funny story: In two different states I’ve had my driver’s license application held because some naughty person had a similar name (not identical, mind you, and obviously my other identifiers didn’t match) and I had to prove I wasn’t that guy. Now that just held up my DL for several weeks and was an annoying PITA. Thankfully, that hasn’t happened in all but one NICS check I’ve done (easily cleared up by comparing numbers). But what about all the ID theft lately?
What makes me nervous every time is that I’ll get falsely flagged, and I won’t just get denied. I’ll get arrested and charged with a felony (and burdened to clear myself), 2A rights denied in the meantime, especially in the current climate of fear. That doesn’t happen in driver/car licensing SNAFUs, unless you have an actual warrant out for you.
If they add DHS watchlists to the check process, you will get flagged if you have a name similar to anyone on the list or any alias they’ve used.
My question: does passing a backgroud check–even when you know you’re spotless–make anybody else nervous, or am I just being paranoid? (Oh no! I didn’t mean to say that! Now I’ll get flagged for mental health issues!)
When you got guys like Darth Sidious waging wars of aggression and Darth Vader force-choking his own employees to death, no wonder your application merits a second look! =)
But I work for the evil empire…
Say:
Your right to self preservation and the protection of your home and family is not optional. If you cannot afford a car and insurance you can walk or wait until circumstances in your life better afford a car and costs associated with it. If costs, licensing and registration is required to own a gun then you are allowing your safety to be optional. Everyone doesn’t have the physical ability to defend themselves or the luxury to wait increasingly longer times to exercise rights that may be in dire circumstances. These people (the old, poor, infirm, victimized) not possessing such time and money resources does not mean they have less need to own firearms.
Owning a car is part of a system to maintain a standard of road safety, maintenance and construction. Owning a gun is for personal safety. The government is not concerned with individual safety, only maintaining social order and making reports in the event of unfortunate incidents. Letting them mandate the exercise of personal safety leaves it in control of people who could be the opponent of your safety. You are not beholden to the government but letting them decide how to exercise your Second Amendment rights leaves you in such a way.
Aside from the fact that you do jot need permission to own weapons by the government and that government power was never meant to limit arms in the hands of citizens but I would stick to material inspired by my first paragraph.
Also, be sure to get her to directly confront what you say as you say it and not deflect and redirect. Winning against my mother is a lost cause because willful ignorance has no counter. Beware if this also.
I have asked a number of Democrats why they want someone like my mother – 81, widowed, crippled, living alone – to give up her guns.
Not a single answer yet. Not ONE.
Disclaimer: My mom died a few years ago – but when she was living, she fit that description. And she was a gun owner.
I cannot believe how many of the Armed “Intelligencia” on this thread believe that driving is a privilege! Learn your history, people, and stop buying into statist, authoritarian BS in regards to your property. Criminy!
Leghorn, the bottom line is that your inherent right to own and use your property for peaceful purposes are violated when you are forced to submit to government approval, permiting, insuring, etc. This applies both to guns and cars… and any other piece of property you licitly obtained.
Freedom to travel is certainly a fundamental right. Driving an automobile has never been held to be a fundamental right and restrictions and conditions have been upheld using a “reasonability” standard, not a strict scrutiny standard. So, is driving a right? I certainly hope so, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions, such as eye- and road-testing, licensing, insurance, speed limits etc. Oh, and blind people should not be allowed to drive. Because that would be silly.
While I’m sure you’re legally correct, those legalities are based on the assumption that some person can set arbitrary standards for how another person uses his property. Additionally, those “reasonable” standards were conceived for regulating the operation of a vehicle for commercial purposes and have nothing to do with a private citizen peaceable going about his business.
The reasonable standard I use (which also happens to be the only standard that respects individual liberty) is that the only restrictions on exercising your rights and using your property is that you do not harm others, their property, or infringe on their natural rights. Anything other than that is authoritarian hogwash.
“Commercial purposes” Hmm, this sounds like it comes from some wacky “sovereign citizen” talking point.
I have several arguments for this one. First: you have no Constitutional right to a car. Second, a registry for cars is to facilitate returning them to their rightful owner should the car be stolen, since we tend to leave cars outside unattended. We do not leave guns around outside unattended, and if your gun is stolen, most police departments have policies against returning firearms. You basically file an insurance claim and buy a new gun. Third, a registry has ZERO crime prevention or solving value. How is having a list of gun owners and what they own going to help prevent or solve a crime? The quick answer: it doesn’t. The only way governments use registries is to have a “shopping list” to come and seize weapons at a later date.
At this point, they’ll say, “that’s paranoid — nobody’s coming for your guns.” I then point out that not only do we have historical examples of just such confiscations, but they aren’t from some ancient time or some faraway place. They’re from New York and California. In New York, owners guns that were suddenly dubbed “assault weapons,” including semi-auto shotguns, were given an “amnesty” period in which to turn them in, and then police went around and scooped-up those not voluntarily surrendered. Then there was the SKS ban in California. As is the usual tactic with the gun ban crowd, they demonize a particular gun, in this case the SKS rifle. Although they weren’t an oft-used “crime gun,” the SKS uses the same cartridge (you say “bullet” to antis) as the scary-sounding AK-47, so the CA legislature banned it in feel good legislation. After promising gun owners that their registry would “never be used” to confiscate their weapons, they again offered a brief “turn in your gun for pennies on the dollar” amnesty period and then began confiscating weapons. I recall reading one story of an LA cop who was a gun collector being rudely awakened one morning by members of his own department who came for his SKS rifle. This laid bare the naked politics of the whole affair: seizing a weapon from a law enforcement officer who would never be a problem to anyone. Seizing guns is always the point of a registry. See what she has to say about that.
I simply tell people to apply all the rules for owning a gun to voting. Get a background check, fingerprinted, show ID, pay a fee to get a permit from your local LE before you can vote. It shuts them up pretty quick.
That works. Now I have to steal it.
I venture to say more people have been harmed from careless voting than careless gun ownership.
I have debated gun control with many anti-gun liberals. If they are rational and take the time to actually hear me out, I can almost always convince them that AWBs are arbitrary and pointless, magazine capacity limits are dangerous, and universal background checks are designed to discourage gun ownership, not make us safer. This is done with a step by step progression from type of gun control to the next, based on policy arguments and concrete examples. You cannot lead off with a 2nd Amendment argument (“What part of shall not be infringed . . .”); it’s not going to be effective with uninformed anti-gunners. They need to understand that even without the Constitution, we have the better argument.
I always start with the AWB, and begin by asking if they know the difference between an assault weapon and a normal rifle. I then illustrate the difference by comparing a picture of a banned rifle and a similar non-banned rifle. A Marlin Camp 9 and Beretta CX4 is good pair for this because the CX4 is not an AR (scary), it’s not associated with the military, and the only real difference between the two is ergonomics (I point out advances like the ambi-ejection port, better balance, pistol grip, etc.). I argue that just like everything else, in recent years gun have become ergonomic. The assault weapons ban does nothing more than ban these new ergonomic features, locking us into past designs (it’d be like banning head-rests in cars). Then I compare the AR-15 with the Mini-14. Same caliber, same rate of fire, similar barrel length and overall size, both detectable magazines with a variety of magazine sizes available. Then I point out that the AR killed 26 in Newtown; the Mini-14 killed 77 in Norway in 2011. I close by pointing out why the AR is so popular (ergonomics, exchangeable uppers). If they point our that the AR seems to be the rifle of choice for mass shootings (as Piers Morgan likes to say), I respond that it’s the #1 selling rifle in the country. As a result, all things being equal, we would EXPECT to see ARs more often in a mass shootings than anything else. Statistically speaking, there are just more of them.
Next I move on the magazine size. I explain that on average 3.? rounds are fired per homicide. That’s not surprising considering a street thug shoots you and runs away. All he cares about is that you die; if that takes an hour, no problem. For self-defense, however, time matters. If you shoot an attacker and he still rapes/stabs/shoots you and then afterwards he dies, that’s not good enough. I explain that handguns are not like in the movies. It takes many rounds to stop someone. In fact, people have been shot in combat and didn’t even realize it. Plus, there could be multiple attackers. I then talk about how police departments all over the country decided to ditch revolvers because, after careful consideration, they determined that the average police officer needed more capacity. We face the same threats they do.
Eventually, you’ll get the “but what if changing a magazine gives people time to tackle a mass shooter, like in Tucson.” I respond by telling them yes, it is possible that maybe a life could be saved. But for every life saved, you’ll end up loosing more from the defensive gun use side of the equation. I then tell them about defensive gun use studies, that on the high end, multiple studies have shown about 2.5M per year. I then say, even if we ignore those studies and go with the LOWEST figure, which is from Clinton’s DOJ (who you know is anti-gun), we still have 100k defensive gun uses per year. So, while a magazine limit may give us a slim chance at saving that one life during a mass shooting, out of 100k defensive gun uses, there’s no question that some of them actually needed more than 10 rounds. You WILL end up with a net loss of life.
For background checks, I explain that gun ownership is on the rise with young people of all backgrounds. I then explain that gun control advocates know they can’t ban guns without getting ownership rates down, so they use “reasonable” background checks to deter first time buyers. I describe NY’s system with 18-month wait times. How NYC charges $340 for a license, plus over $90 to be fingerprinted, and that you have to get re-fingerprinted each time you buy a new gun, as if your fingerprints change over time. I point out how under Schumer’s universal background check bill, you can’t even touch someone else’s gun without becoming a criminal (absent hyper-technical exceptions), and I ask them how are new shooters supposed to get involved with such a law in place. As for a registry, I point out the gun confiscation in Katrina to show that any mistrust is based on past actions, not conspiracy theories. I explain that the problem is that gun grabbers can’t be trusted. They claim to be passing reasonable laws, but they always have an ulterior motive.
At this point, I go to the Second Amendment. I describe it as a fire extinguisher: it’s there for when all else fails. And it’s not just about about keeping the government at bay. It is to provide a community with the ability to come together for the common defense (i.e. the Militia). This can be anything, natural disaster, riot, or even an invasion. During WWII, the French went from being free to having all of their rights stripped away in only 1 month and 12 days. The 2A would allow 200+ million Americans to fight back. I then give them the Admiral Yamato quote (you can’t invade the US because “there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass”)
If we make it this far, they are usually convinced. I then offer to take them to the range for the first time, and they usually accept.
Sorry for the long post. I’m just trying to layout a guide to help those who may have trouble articulating their pro-gun position to others.
I forgot to mention the car argument response.
Aside from the fact that one is protected by the constitution, nobody is trying to ban cars. There are no politicians who have made banning cars their life’s work. There are no political groups trying to ban cars. States are not using car registration to deter ownership by making you wait 18 months. And no state has gone door-to-door during an emergency to seize your car. The fact is, unlike with cars, gun control is used to suppress ownership by law abiding citizens, while having no effect on its purported purpose of stopping criminals. As for the “well, criminals still commit murder, so should we make that legal too?” argument, I point out that one law is designed to deter a certain activity (criminals getting guns) and the other law is designed to punish wrongdoing. They are not comparable.
I’m personally glad for posts like this. I know we should never speak ill of our parents, but then again it’s only normal that we need to vent somewhere, too.
I’ve come to the depressing conclusion that half my family – to wit, my dad, stepmom, my 2 sisters and their families, are a lost cause. They’re all ultra-liberal, tree-hugging, and in the case of my two sisters, vegans. Not sure if either one of them have ever touched a firearm in their lives or not. For sure neither one of them cares. My dad and I are no longer on speaking terms because he thinks I went off the deep end since Sandy Hook, when in fact he went off the deep end at least a few years before my time. He and my grandfather hated each other; I just came along for the ride, which has yet to stop.
My grandmother, bless her heart, was the sweetest lady but totally emo when it came to guns. One time she refused to remain in the dining room when my grandfather and I were checking his WW2 pistols (a 1911 and a P38) after he cautioned me they might be loaded. She pitched a fit and huffed off to the bedroom. He didn’t argue. Guess he already learned the hard way, lol.
So now I’m sorta caught in between these two family factions – one a bunch of self-proclaimed Kansas ‘progressives’ (they think Sam Brownback is Satan and the Koch brothers own the state) and the more conservative group consisting of my youngest aunt, her family, my grandfather, and eventually me since I’m going to move closer to them. But, as near as I can tell my dad, stepmom, and very possibly my sister’s husband all go ballistic whenever the NRA is mentioned. Why, they’re the very enemy of world peace, wouldn’t you know!
All I can do is shake my head. And keep my powder dry.
Like most here I agree, you can’t win this argument with your mom. You are both coming at your opinions from differing mindsets. Your mom is a mom. Mom’s are wired to not like anything they perceive as remotely dangerous. Mom’s always see their kids (no matter what age) as “children” that must be nurtured, protected, etc. And most importantly, when it comes to guns, their official position is : You’ll shoot your eye out.
Don’t waste your time trying to convert mom. Thank her profusely for all she has done for you, and for raising a strong, independent adult that can form his own opinions in such matters.
Let’s extend her logic to other fundamental rights. Tell her that we should register all people with a religion, make them pay a registration fee and start a national registry. While we’re at it, tell her we should make all Muslims buy terrorist insurance… just in case they decide to go full Muhammad on us. Tell her that its especially important to get all the Jews on the list, because those kinds of lists have been historically helpful to well-intentioned governments enforcing “public safety.”
Registering and insuring guns is ridiculous because they are so small and so ubiquitous. A car weighs thousands of pounds and is full of flammable liquid, it can do much more damage to life and property than any conventional, legally available firearm. A gun is a tool that exists to harvest animals and defend life and liberty.
Those who would compare a gun to an automobile clearly see it as some kind of luxury item and they are urinating all over our American heritage by slandering the reality of legal gun ownership. This is a philosophical conflict and a significant portion of America essentially believes that progress requires a broad expansion of the state in general and the security state in particular. They desire homogenization with Europe when it comes to firearm ownership and they will not be happy until they get it.
These people must be exposed for what they are and publicly humiliated for worshipping the state. At every opportunity, they should be forced to come out say how much they actually hate the United States of America.
First, give your mom a hug, and tell her you love her. Then ask her if she would please look up the definition of the word “infringed”, and then use it in a sentence. My mom, God bless her soul, bought my first handgun because I was under 21. She shot with my brother and me often. She liked shooting .22s, and could handle my Dan Wesson .357, but that was her limit.
Plain and simple, driving is a privilege and not covered under the Bill of Rights, as to owning a gun IS A RIGHT, that IS covered under the BoR’s and Constitution and “shall not be infringed” is clearly stated.
You drive a car on public roads, with a very high risk (comparatively), of an accident. Hence, in the name of public safety, we have licensing.
Owning a firearm on private property is very different than driving a car in public, where it poses a real risk to all others on the road. A gun locked up at home poses no risk. Operating a firearm is also MUCH simpler and safer (to the user), than driving a vehicle.
Besides, there has never been (as far as I can tell) a historical precedent where governments have worked to ban cars in order to tyrannically rule over a nation. With firearms, there has been that precedent numerous times.
Your mother has to get it through her head that her leaders may very well not have her best interests in mind when passing legislation.
Some great comments, I haven’t read them all so I apologize if I’m repeating anything.
Ask how she feels about the government mandating that speed limiters and breathalyzer ignition locks be installed on all cars, at the owner’s expense? All new cars will have them installed and of course increasing the cost. Having to wait 10 days before she gets to take home the car she just bought? Getting a background check to make sure she’s not taking any medications that could hinder her driving? Having to go through a car dealer and pay them a fee to sell her car to someone else? Having to go through a car dealer and pay them a fee to sell her car to someone else (repeated for clarity)? X point ‘safety’ inspections performed by law enforcement, which they can do at any time you’re on the public roads (tire tread depth, fluid levels, brake wear, shocks/struts, ball joints/tie-rods, etc…)? In order to let someone borrow the car she wouldn’t mind going back to the dealership and pay a fee, right? Same thing for when it’s returned? Now if that 1986 Buick Regal in the back 40 that dear old dad was gonna ‘restore’ gets stolen, she’s ok with having to report it (and potentially get it back) because she’d be facing a stiff fine or even jail if anytime between 48 hours and the rest of her life that car is in an accident and hurts someone? She’s also ok with surrendering her Corvette because the government deemed it to be too fast and dangerous, or her Expedition because she doesn’t need all those seats for just her, right? In fact, to get a truck she doesn’t mind showing ‘good cause’, because you need to have a good reason to own a truck, duh. In fact, she’s fine with the government limiting cars to people based on what is ‘common sense’, so unless you have a family bigger than 4 your choices are Ford Taurus or a Honda Civic. You can’t get a minivan unless you can prove it will be at 75% capacity per trip, on average. But she’s good with that, right? When she gets gas the station manager will record it along with her mileage and put it into a national database which will keep track of her fuel economy to be compared to standards for that vehicle, others with that vehicle and the national average overall. She’s fine with the government using this to configure how much you pay for gas which the station manager sets after he runs your id. I like your mom….sounds like a cool lady 🙂 How good is her lasagna?
Simple. Ask her if she feels the same way about a woman having an abortion. What is wrong with a background check before she gets one? What is wrong with requiring a permit for an abortion? What if she’s had “too many” abortions – who needs more than one or two?
I would tell her if she wanted to see her grandchildren again she must at least make an attempt to get educated on the subject*, she wouldn’t have to agree with me, but the attempt must be made. Optionally if she finds that un-acceptable, she could remove herself from a debate she obviously knows very little about. Of course you have to have children for this to work. Luckily my parents have become pro-gun in their old age (though they were anti-gun when I was younger) and my mother-in-law has chosen to the second option; she understands she knows little about the subject while I’ve become well versed in it, and has grudgingly accepted that fact.
*I of course do not actually advocate cutting grandparents off from their grandchildren over a political disagreement, and anything I have to say on any subject should probably be ignored for your own benefit.
TO: Nick Leghorn, et al.
RE: Stupid Beliefs…..
….are not removed until someone has their lives touched in the most personal manner.
From my perspective, keep an eye on ‘home invasions’ that take place close to her. Especially those that happen in her neighborhood or to a friend or relation.
Point such out to her.
As the truism goes….
A liberal is a conservative that hasn’t been ‘mugged’ by reality….yet…..
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The wise learn from other peoples’ mistakes. Most people learn from their own. Fools never learn.]
Nick,
This may already be addressed above, as I didn’t read all of the comments.
With my mom, (she’s 88, i’m 54, shooter, retired cop), I hit her where it made sense. The book argument and the 1st amendment.
Certain books banned because of their color. Banned because they are too small or too big. Banned because it has two titles? Banned because it has too many pages, or not enough pages. Banned because it was written in the wrong country.
Or that you have to pay a $200 dollar tax on every one, plus get fingerprinted and have a background check…
This brought some explaining from me to mom. When she saw the light, she just said, “I see your point”.
TO: All
RE: An Additional Thought
The other day I was talking about weapons with a woman who had professed that she’d rather die than kill someone with a firearm.
Then her son proposed a scenario….
…what if the guy is pointing a gun at my son….YOUR GRANDSON?
At which point her ‘mama bear’ came into full display…SHE’D GUN THE BASTARD DOWN!
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out….it’s just a matter of ‘perspective’…..]
I’d like to piggyback on what Chuck said. It’s what I call emotion-fu. She thinks emotionally and reason doesn’t get through to her on this subject. I would ask your mother to close her eyes and imagine when you were younger and relatively helpless. Tell her to imagine that she’s asleep at night and she hears a noise coming from your room. She gets up to investigate and in the dark finds her way to your room and opens the door. Tell her that she sees a man with an upraised knife about to plunge it into you. Then ask her if she might not want to have a gun to defend you with? Feel free to embellish as you like.
Cordially,
David
This one is easy:
You don’t have to have registration, license or insurance to drive your car on your own private property. So, as long as it remains in the driveway, you aren’t legally required to have any of that.
Do not waste your time on it. My father and brother are both two time voters for Obama and I have given up on them. I save my energy for others that are uninformed but logical.
Show her this
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/we-need-to-regulate-cars-the-way-we-regulate-guns
The right to drive a vehicle is not a specifically enumerated right; furthermore, it is not prohibited from infringement. It is a privilege; one you pay to use through taxes, usage fees, and licensing requirements. You are free to walk wherever you wish, if you disagree with paying those fees.
Not much to add, I have “debates” like yours with my Mom all the time…. I feel your pain brother.
Counter that specific idiotic post? I’d start hammering her with a never ending stream of “We need to ban high powered assault vehicles”, “No one needs more than four cylinders”, “Turbochargers and superchargers belong on the racetrack, not our streets”, “No one needs more than 50 hp”, etc. Oh, and constantly ask why she owns that death machine and why she “needs” a car that big and that fast.
Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say our “right” to have an automobile shall not be infringed? ok ok ok… cars didnt exist in the 1700s, but horses did and so did wagons. where does it say we have a right for a mode of transportation?
Funny how times change. When we were very little(5&6 yrs old) my brother and I would help my Dad reload the 7mm and 12ga rounds. When he went Deer hunting we would help him wrap his rifles in the customary brown paper to carry onto the plane. It was at this same age he taught us both to shoot. We were easy, a single shot Sears/Savage 22lr, a $.60 box of 50 rounds and off to the range we went. All of course was Mom approved.
Mom & Dad were Mass. Democrats, but back then that meant moderately conservative. I put an “R” behind his name in the mid-70’s, however; Mom never changed and migrated farther left. Dad sold his rifles after RFK was shot. He once confided in me that when he went hunting he could never pull the trigger on a Deer. He had the “Deer Hunter” syndrome if you catch my drift. He still brought venison home for use to eat and we still went to the range…..to bad he is not around today to try an AR15, I know he would have loved to shoot one. Mom, not so much !
I have found using logic with a liberal, even my mother, was usually ineffective at best, and caused them to further regress and retrench into their original position at worst.
Logical arguments requires a logical brain. Using the cliche’d arguments about cars, licensing, insurance, constitutional rights, etc…. never work.
Emotion, feelings, individual experiences will lower resistance to “truth” and “understanding”. Finding agreeable material (to your argumen) from a “liberal-friendly” sources, while difficult, can help in breaking the barriers down. These can be found, but are more difficult.
I would recommend caution, as she is your mother – having lost my mother last year, who disagreed with me quite often on politics, I hope that you steer clear of discussion except when you can be polite and respectful at all times. I understand your challenges – just like a child, a liberal is most pliable when their emotional state is one of “happiness” and “joy”. Treat them as such! 🙂
I am really surprised no one has linked to this. It is from TTAG about a year ago. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/08/bruce-w-krafft/gun-owner-protection-treating-guns-like-cars/
I have some arguments that work. E-mail me.
owning a car and driving is a privilege as its not in the Bill of Rights/Constitution. owning a gun is s right.
argument over.
I’ve always thought it was a compelling argument to ask them if they thought killing or harming other people ought to be illegal.
What if guns were regulated like cars?
How are cars regulated…
Driving on private property requires neither certain age, license, registration, safety inspection, or yearly taxes. Private sales can be done entirely without state or federal notification. Dealer sales of non-registered vehicles are only identified for applicable sales taxes. These unregistered cars can be transported by trailer anywhere in the US, no State prohibits it. The vehicle can be sold from one state to any other state, privately, without any dealer involvement. Any person can legally own any vehicle, whether 5hp go-kart, 10,000hp top fueler, 1,375,000lb mining truck, or riding lawn mower. Only limit is money and a place to put it. There are no private ownership bans on type, shape or cosmetic feature for private use. Any vehicle can be converted to high powered race car and back to emissions complaint street car at whim.
For use on public roads, only the vehicle to be used are required to have liability insurance, tax, title, and registration. Other than emissions testing, there is no limit to vehicle power and speed. The only performance limitation is maximum weight of the vehicle, so it doesn’t tear up the roads. If the applicant for license meets the brain dead test, the State always issues the license for use at any public road, anywhere, at any time. The licenses from one state are respected in every state.
So what if guns were regulated like cars?
If a firearm is used on private property only, then there is no age, license, registration, safety inspection, or yearly taxes. Private sales of firearms are done entirely without state or federal paperwork. Dealer sales only have sales tax paperwork, for private unregistered guns. These guns can be carried and transported anywhere in the US, no Federal, State, county, or city official can interfere. Firearms could be bought and sold country wide without dealer or federal involvement. Any person could own any kind of firearm, whether a single shot 22 pistol, 155mm Howitzer, 500lb bomb, or 223 varmint rifle. There are no private ownership bans on type, shape, or cosmetic feature. Any firearm can be converted from simple semi-automatic hunting to full automatic short barreled silenced rifle and back hunting gun at a whim of the owner.
For use of public concealed carry and open carry and gov’t ranges, there might be personal liability insurance for negligent discharge and licensing scheme. The only limit to what is carried is that it doesn’t destroy the backstop at the gov’t range. Otherwise, there is no limit to what can be carried, when, and where. The licensing system is a very low bar to pass, and all states must issue a license for those who pass. The license will be good for any state, anywhere, anytime. The license for public use can only be revoked after infraction of rules is established in court of law. Even then, the revocation only affects public uses, and has no force on private property.
WHY —would any normal, American citizen find reason to reject background checks and Military Weapon bans? I cannot get in the head of someone who thinks like that. Is your fear and paranoia that large, that you cannot conceive life without a weapon? We do not own any weapons in this house, NOR does my husband feel the need for one. You people protesting so much, really, really need help. To live your life like this must be hell.
“I cannot get in the head of someone who thinks like that. Is your fear and paranoia that large, that you cannot conceive life without a weapon? We do not own any weapons in this house, NOR does my husband feel the need for one. You people protesting so much, really, really need help. To live your life like this must be hell.”
Bruce B. said this earlier today, commenting on this article: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/05/daniel-zimmerman/quote-of-the-day-does-this-count-as-being-mugged-edition/#comments
“Just takes a 2 x 4 between the eyes for some people, huh?
Is it a simple lack of imagination? I live in a very safe (relative to the country) small town America location, yet the man 4 doors down killed his entire family, including two little boys. Had a school shooting 20 miles from here. There is a trial going on right now for two brothers who, during a home invasion, slaughtered 5 of 6 family members with a tire iron (Google Gee family murders). About 40 miles away. I could go on.
Horrible things can happen anywhere, anytime, to anyone. Why do some of these idiots think they are so special that the real world can never touch them?
Guns = last line of defense
That’s not a new, or particularly difficult equation. Yet there are all these blind FOOLS who somehow read it thusly –
Guns = icky
There attempted refutation of reality is at once pathetic, sickening, and frightening.”
Oh, and before you think you and your loved ones are so safe, you should plug your address into http://www.spotcrime.com/ or https://www.crimereports.com/ You might be surprised about how “safe” your community is.
“WHY —would any normal, American citizen find reason to reject background checks…”
This was answered earlier this year:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/bruce-w-krafft/the-problem-with-universal-background-checks-part-1/
I am not going to quote from the article, you should read it yourself.
“WHY —would any normal, American citizen find reason to reject… Military Weapon bans?”
Here is what the Massachusetts police say:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/daniel-zimmerman/massachusetts-cops-on-why-you-should-own-an-ar-15/
If the police think it is a good idea to have them, then why would we want to ban these semiautomatic, pseudo military rifles for ordinary citizens?
Is your fear and paranoia that large, that you cannot conceive life *with* a weapon? I guess in your utopia there is no need for self-defense. I suppose you also don’t have any fire extinguishers in your home or place of business, or a spare tire and tire iron in your car. I hope I’ll never have to use any of those, but it is wise to be prepared for emergencies.
“WHY —would any normal, American citizen find reason to reject background checks and Military Weapon bans?”
You need to define “Military Weapon”. Are you referring to semi-automatic, scary-looking rifles? If so, those aren’t really “Military Weapons”. The military generally uses select-fire rifles – that is, they’re capable of fully-automatic fire. I’m not aware of any branch of the US military that uses a semi-auto AR-15 as a standard service weapon. However, it turns out that our armed forces *do* use semi-auto pistols. For example, the Colt 1911 (yes, a 100-year-old design) and the Beretta M9. So banning “Military Weapons” means getting rid of all semi-auto pistols (leaving us with revolvers), but keeping the semi-auto rifles like AR-15.
Background checks… are you aware of what the defeated Manchin-Toomey amendment really said? It would’ve required private-party transfers to go through a federally-licensed dealer – triggering a background check requirement – but only if either the buyer or seller had advertised in a publication or on the Internet, or if the transfer happened at a “gun show”. Even if M-T had become law, I could’ve walked down the street asking people “hey, want to buy a gun?”, and sold a firearm to anyone I wished – with no background check required.
“We do not own any weapons in this house”
That’s almost certainly false – unless you have a ridiculously limited definition of “weapons”.