Arguing with an Anti


surfcc

New member
A couple of friends and I were having a spirited debate with an anti last night at a New Years party (mild party, we all left around 10PM) and he said " I think it's ludicrous you guys feel the need to be armed. They ought to just completely out law guns." I said, "I think they ought to just completely outlaw drugs." To which he replied,"They already are outlawed." I said, "exactly." We all looked at each other and back at the anti, with a grin.....I said I guess that kinda ends your argument.
 

Good move! I assume you guys were enjoying what a borderline alcoholic friend of mine refers to as "cocktails" . . . You may have also pointed out that alcohol is also a 'drug', heavily regulated by the US of A Gummint, that's also abused by millions and the cause of many unnecessary deaths every year.
 
A couple of friends and I were having a spirited debate with an anti last night at a New Years party (mild party, we all left around 10PM) and he said " I think it's ludicrous you guys feel the need to be armed. They ought to just completely out law guns." I said, "I think they ought to just completely outlaw drugs." To which he replied,"They already are outlawed." I said, "exactly." We all looked at each other and back at the anti, with a grin.....I said I guess that kinda ends your argument.

Well stated!
 
LMAO That kinda goes along with something I read once about punching a pacifist in the face until he's no longer a pacifist.
 
A couple of friends and I were having a spirited debate with an anti last night at a New Years party (mild party, we all left around 10PM) and he said " I think it's ludicrous you guys feel the need to be armed. They ought to just completely out law guns." I said, "I think they ought to just completely outlaw drugs." To which he replied,"They already are outlawed." I said, "exactly." We all looked at each other and back at the anti, with a grin.....I said I guess that kinda ends your argument.

Awesome :biggrin:
 
Another good response should have been...
"Well! if someone is trying to kill you, will you rather have a cell phone or a gun?"

I know...it is an old phrase but that was what I told my hairdresser yesterday morning when the subject came up.
 
The problem is that he is correct, it is ludicrous that we feel the need to be armed. If we COULD live in a society where we could feel completely secure without the need to be armed NONE of us would be armed!

So when the anti's can produce that environment, I will happily sign on, unfortuantely that is never going to happen so I will have live with it being ludicrous.
 
Good move! I assume you guys were enjoying what a borderline alcoholic friend of mine refers to as "cocktails" . . . You may have also pointed out that alcohol is also a 'drug', heavily regulated by the US of A Gummint, that's also abused by millions and the cause of many unnecessary deaths every year.

Snap! This is a favorite of mine, some mindless idiot swilling booze while breezily informing everybody that guns should be outlawed, like drugs. Dumbass.
 
Considering everything it sounds like you did a pretty good job. Usually you get about as far arguing with an anti as you would a rock.
 
I would ask them if they would feel moraly superior as they stood at the grave of a loved one knowing that you could have used a gun to save their live but didn't.
 
I've had a few second amendment disagreements in my short tenure as a gun owner. Some aspects of a "well organized militia" have changed in appearance over the years. Though that statement was just the preamble for the main statement of the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. But in fairness, instead if having Indian battles on the frontier and defense from England, we now have drug thugs, gang bangers and radical islamists. Depending on where you live, that can make present circumstanes more scary than past circumstances! And the most important reason that the founding fathers wanted firearms in the hands of the people......as a defense against a tyrannical government. In Colonial New England, the British marched to Concord to keep the colonists from getting gunpowder. In Colonial Williamsburg, the British troops first took over the city's powder magazine. In 1933 Nazi Germany banned guns.....the rest is history. In the late 1960's, when the "Deacons For Defense" gained the right to bear arms, it wasn't so easy anymore for those KKK thugs to just go in and shoot people they didn't like.
It wasn't so much the fear of Great Britain coming to get us back then, as much as it was a safeguard against the United States adopting the monachial and imperialistic aspects of an oppressive and tyrannical government.
 
I've had a few second amendment disagreements in my short tenure as a gun owner. Some aspects of a "well organized militia" have changed in appearance over the years. Though that statement was just the preamble for the main statement of the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. But in fairness, instead if having Indian battles on the frontier and defense from England, we now have drug thugs, gang bangers and radical islamists. Depending on where you live, that can make present circumstanes more scary than past circumstances! And the most important reason that the founding fathers wanted firearms in the hands of the people......as a defense against a tyrannical government. In Colonial New England, the British marched to Concord to keep the colonists from getting gunpowder. In Colonial Williamsburg, the British troops first took over the city's powder magazine. In 1933 Nazi Germany banned guns.....the rest is history. In the late 1960's, when the "Deacons For Defense" gained the right to bear arms, it wasn't so easy anymore for those KKK thugs to just go in and shoot people they didn't like.
It wasn't so much the fear of Great Britain coming to get us back then, as much as it was a safeguard against the United States adopting the monachial and imperialistic aspects of an oppressive and tyrannical government.

"well regulated militia"*
 
I've had a few second amendment disagreements in my short tenure as a gun owner. Some aspects of a "well organized militia" have changed in appearance over the years. Though that statement was just the preamble for the main statement of the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. But in fairness, instead if having Indian battles on the frontier and defense from England, we now have drug thugs, gang bangers and radical islamists. Depending on where you live, that can make present circumstanes more scary than past circumstances! And the most important reason that the founding fathers wanted firearms in the hands of the people......as a defense against a tyrannical government. In Colonial New England, the British marched to Concord to keep the colonists from getting gunpowder. In Colonial Williamsburg, the British troops first took over the city's powder magazine. In 1933 Nazi Germany banned guns.....the rest is history. In the late 1960's, when the "Deacons For Defense" gained the right to bear arms, it wasn't so easy anymore for those KKK thugs to just go in and shoot people they didn't like.
It wasn't so much the fear of Great Britain coming to get us back then, as much as it was a safeguard against the United States adopting the monachial and imperialistic aspects of an oppressive and tyrannical government.

Well stated and duly noted!
 
The *WHOLE* of society was the militia.
"regulated" being in order; orderly.

Every man was required to have a rifle, gunpowder, and bullets.

My apologies ... I digress ... for repeating what is commonly known.

J

I was just correcting the well organized that was posted to what it actually says...

Regulated being: Well equipped, trained...
 
Considering everything it sounds like you did a pretty good job. Usually you get about as far arguing with an anti as you would a rock.

:laugh::laugh: Very much agreed!! Because of my current job I’ve had to have discussions with several people who turned out to be antis. And I always seemed to get absolutely nowhere with them. (again I think HK4Us "rock" comparison is perfect!).

I’m beginning to think the mindset of an anti could be classified as a mental disorder. :sarcastic:
 
I love when they bring up the "well regulated militia" argument, saying that we have a national guard. I just point out the fact that the national guard wasn't formed until 1903 under the Dick Act. Then ask them who the militia was up untill that time? Usually you just get idiots with blank stares.
 
Sorry about the misquote. My next "quick reply" will be better organized AND well regulated!
I love that 1903 Dick Act comment !!!
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,538
Messages
611,233
Members
74,950
Latest member
gman8309
Back
Top