How do you answer this question?
- Thread starter DrDavidM
- Start date
molonlabetn
New member
My sword didn't go with this outfit..
ishi
New member
I really like that. It's really simple, honest, and doesn't sound calculated at all. It's a winner!
CA CCWInstructor
New member
I carry because I can..... That and because there is no 811.
mot mayhem
New member
but, there IS a seven eleven !!!
Skirmisher
New member
because I refuse to be a helpless victim
Tarzan1888
New member
I do a lot of work in the field and so my normal response is that I carry for self protection.
Tarzan
Enthusiast
New member
I carry to protect my family and myself.
Ziggy
New member
Answers
Ishi, I wanted to thank you for your well thought out conversation.
We know a lot of "anti-gun nuts" who present exactly those arguments; "that's what the police are for" "that's dangerous, someone will get hurt" "aren't you paranoid?" I don't want to argue with these people, they need to be educated in a logical, pleasant manner, instead of debated with or dismissed. I especially like your fire extinguisher logic, we'll be passing along your ideas!
Ishi, I wanted to thank you for your well thought out conversation.
We know a lot of "anti-gun nuts" who present exactly those arguments; "that's what the police are for" "that's dangerous, someone will get hurt" "aren't you paranoid?" I don't want to argue with these people, they need to be educated in a logical, pleasant manner, instead of debated with or dismissed. I especially like your fire extinguisher logic, we'll be passing along your ideas!
NDS
New member
Thanks all for an interesting read. While I don't get a lot of 'Why do you carry' here in NV or when in AZ (CA is pretty much hopeless), my work does raise questions. I teach at a Junior High School and a few of us carry (off campus of course). We don't feel any need to be armed among students or other on-campus adults, but we all share a nightmarish hope we never see a Dylan-Klebold episode. I wish there were some (politically acceptable) way to be better prepared for such an eventuality.
I can only hope we can change what is acceptable in the near future. Schools need to change from 'gun free zones' to 'student safety protected' zones.
I can only hope we can change what is acceptable in the near future. Schools need to change from 'gun free zones' to 'student safety protected' zones.
Last edited:
BluesStringer
Les Brers
I've never been asked the question because there's really only two people besides myself that know that I carry; my wife and my best friend, both of whom also carry.
That said, the conversation is really just like any run-of-the-mill 2A debate. People either recognize it as being as important a right as any other, or they flat-out don't understand The Constitution. While I try not to outright dismiss the latter group of people as ignorant dolts in the course of conversation, in my own mind I can't help but think of them that way, which is a big reason I keep the fact that I carry to myself. They, the ignorant dolts, will never understand, much less support, my reasons for carrying, so I see no point in walking on eggshells with them and trying to come off as the kindly, gentle, wise old man who only wants to educate them for their own good, when the fact is, as I'm going through those phony contortions, they're thinking that they'd like nothing more than to disarm me and every American. My personal opinion is that anyone who engages true antis is wasting their time, unless they just like to practice up on their debating skills, but that's all they're likely to accomplish.
Just as a point of clarification, the above only applies to people whom I have some knowledge of their depth of liberal"ness" if you will. If it's just someone who is admittedly ignorant, but open to, and sincerely wants to, learn something about their country and The Constitution, I'm thrilled to engage them. I don't see that type of conversation as being a waste of time.
Blues
That said, the conversation is really just like any run-of-the-mill 2A debate. People either recognize it as being as important a right as any other, or they flat-out don't understand The Constitution. While I try not to outright dismiss the latter group of people as ignorant dolts in the course of conversation, in my own mind I can't help but think of them that way, which is a big reason I keep the fact that I carry to myself. They, the ignorant dolts, will never understand, much less support, my reasons for carrying, so I see no point in walking on eggshells with them and trying to come off as the kindly, gentle, wise old man who only wants to educate them for their own good, when the fact is, as I'm going through those phony contortions, they're thinking that they'd like nothing more than to disarm me and every American. My personal opinion is that anyone who engages true antis is wasting their time, unless they just like to practice up on their debating skills, but that's all they're likely to accomplish.
Just as a point of clarification, the above only applies to people whom I have some knowledge of their depth of liberal"ness" if you will. If it's just someone who is admittedly ignorant, but open to, and sincerely wants to, learn something about their country and The Constitution, I'm thrilled to engage them. I don't see that type of conversation as being a waste of time.
Blues
ishi
New member
Thanks for the compliment, Zig.
I think people can be educated, and it just takes some finesse. Changing somebody else's viewpoint requires the ability to understand that person's point of view, and the real reason why they feel the way they do.
Politics in a democracy is purely a war of hearts and minds - you can't "destroy the enemy" in order to win. Eventually, the only way to win is to change somebody else's mind, and that takes some empathy. It seems really strange to me, to think about people with different political views as "The Enemy". It's certainly ineffective.
Why even bother to talk to The Enemy? The Enemy is pure evil, not capable of reason, etc. Even trying to understand why The Enemy thinks the way they do, is treason.
There's really no way out once a person gets entrenched like that. It's hard, very hard to understand people who think differently. It can be done though. Once you understand, you can find commonalities and begin to make arguments from positions you'd never even seen before.
For example, I've got some really amazing arguments to support the 2A, from a progressive viewpoint. I doubt that anybody here would even think of these arguments, because they are arguments from the left. I've never voiced them, because they would probably make people pretty angry
But they are extremely effective in supporting the 2A to a progressive.It's all about knowing your audience and understanding their needs, finding a path that already exists and using it to make a short bridge over to a new idea.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Actually, I do too, but only if they want to be. Do you really think that an adult who grew up in America is going to be open to being educated on the fact that there's a 2nd Amendment and a long history of law upholding the RKBA? It's not like that's going to be a surprise to them. I can see it now....."Wow, I never knew about the 2A! I've been wrong all these years and you have succeeded in showing me the light with your kind, gentle wisdom and teachings." Yeah, that's gonna happen.
Isn't finesse about the same thing as walking on eggshells? And isn't walking on eggshells about the same thing as coddling someone even if they're flat-out wrong? Have at it if that's what floats your boat, but I think you're kidding yourself if you think it really gets you anywhere with true leftist anti-gunners.
I'll give you a chance to finesse me out of something I believe strongly in. Explain to me how it is constitutional for Nancy Pelosi to embark on a diplomatic mission to Syria and make assurances to Assad that Olbert, the Israeli Prime Minister, will rejoin talks with them after she and her entourage, including the other congress-critter with her, Lantos, convince him to.
You can use all the finesse you have in you and you will never convince me that it's within Congress' purview to conduct their own diplomacy against the stated wishes of the Executive. I am just as unshakable in that belief as I think anti-gunners are in theirs, so why waste my time with them?
Really? OK, you now understand that I think Pelosi and Lantos conducted themselves in an unconstitutional manner on their trip to Syria last year. That's my POV. The real reason I believe that is because the Executive branch's and the Legislative branch's powers are clearly defined in the Constitution, and the President is the only one with diplomatic powers beyond simply voting against or in favor of treaties and international agreements. Now finesse me out of that belief. Good luck.
I see it more as an arena of ideas, but regardless, that's quite a bold statement of fact as to what it "purely" is. I think the Constitution sets out what is purely constitutional republicanism (we're not really a democracy you know), and how people's hearts and minds feel about it is literally meaningless.
No, but you can defeat them in the arena of ideas. Finesse, in my experience, is not what defeats them though. Conviction, knowledge and the ability to point to historical facts and documents to make one's point is much more of a winning strategy. I've never seen a condescending game of paddy-cake win anything of substance.
No, it takes having history and the law on your side. You can have all the empathy you want for what I believe in, but you've got a very slim chance of changing my mind about anything important with it. Now, facts, law and history have a great chance of influencing my beliefs.
I don't know how ineffective it is. Do you think that Pelosi or Reid think of Bush as "The Enemy?" Karl Rove? Tom Delay? Rush Limbaugh? I do, and I also think that, though they've lost almost every battle they've fought against those enemies, they've been very effective at getting a message out to their base that they're willing to stand up to The Enemy. If Dems win again in '08, it sure as heck won't be because they finessed their way into power, it will be because they defeated their enemies! If Reps win, it will be in spite of their attempts to placate liberals with monstrous drug entitlements, out-of-control-spending, McCain/Feingold, turning over huge education bills to the likes of Ted Kennedy and on and on and on. Conservatives only win when they stand on conservative values. Trying to finesse their way around them is a losing proposition.
Well, the not capable of reason part may be right, but "pure evil?" Not even liberals are that far gone! But the tactic is right in line with how liberalism is typically communicated; through irrational emotionalism, hyperbole and exaggeration. I'm sure your "progressive" friends would pat you on the back for that, but I seriously doubt that you've finessed anyone's conservative ideals out from under them.
Actually, you've got it 180 degrees out of phase. If one doesn't make sure they understand The Enemy's thought-processes, that's much closer to a treasonous act than closing their eyes to it.
But whatever, that's just more meaningless emotionalism and hyperbole with no basis in fact or history.
I patiently wait for you to prove to us all that this is true. Convince me through this tactic that Pelosi and Lantos didn't overstep their constitutional authority by engaging in diplomacy with a foreign enemy-country.
For example, I've got some really amazing arguments to support the 2A, from a progressive viewpoint. I doubt that anybody here would even think of these arguments, because they are arguments from the left. I've never voiced them, because they would probably make people pretty angry
Hey, a good argument is a good argument no matter what perspective it originates from. And I'd dearly love to see how many "progressives" you've changed the minds of concerning gun-control. I mean, being "extremely effective" and all, you must have a score-card that would impress even the most entrenched conservative. Let's see it.
So your argument really changes depending on the audience you're addressing? And what "new idea" do you offer them to convert from a liberal anti-gunner to a pro-2A supporter? Obviously the truth, that the 2A means what it says and history proves that it protects an individual, God-given right, isn't enough. The Constitution is my short bridge, and people for whom that isn't good enough will never come around to seeing things my way just because I condescend them with my hypnotic finesse.
Blues
Ziggy
New member
Explaining to the uninformed
It's been my personal experience that the people who ask me those questions have one thing in common: they are afraid of guns.
I've not had the displeasure of entering into such a conversation with a rabid anti-gun nut who wants to take away my rights. It's been people who sincerely don't understand why on earth someone would even own a gun, as children will get shot with it, if I have to use it the BG or police will shoot me, if anyone had a concealed weapon at (name your mass murder) then even more people would have died, etc.
These people don't know the facts. They're unaware of the low crime statistics among CCW holders, the high number of cases of horrible crimes being stopped by them, etc. They heard all about the two children accidentally shot last year while playing with daddy's gun, and somehow missed the 20 people whose lives were saved by someone with a gun under their jacket. And these people DO listen, they can be educated, they are surprised by the actual facts, and they can be made more comfortable with other people exercising their rights. You only have to plant a seed.
It's been my personal experience that the people who ask me those questions have one thing in common: they are afraid of guns.
I've not had the displeasure of entering into such a conversation with a rabid anti-gun nut who wants to take away my rights. It's been people who sincerely don't understand why on earth someone would even own a gun, as children will get shot with it, if I have to use it the BG or police will shoot me, if anyone had a concealed weapon at (name your mass murder) then even more people would have died, etc.
These people don't know the facts. They're unaware of the low crime statistics among CCW holders, the high number of cases of horrible crimes being stopped by them, etc. They heard all about the two children accidentally shot last year while playing with daddy's gun, and somehow missed the 20 people whose lives were saved by someone with a gun under their jacket. And these people DO listen, they can be educated, they are surprised by the actual facts, and they can be made more comfortable with other people exercising their rights. You only have to plant a seed.
