Please critique this pro-2A argument.

[BobPistol]

This is a continuation of my original idea to change the narrative of the 2A.

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=68249&page=1

 

If the anti is a woman, I'd ask:

 

 

An armed thug is coming at you. He's going to rape you. You have no choice, you're pretty much in a situation where he's going to hurt you badly.

 

Fill in the blank: You cannot be allowed to use a ______________ to stop the rape.

 

The correct answer is you don't fill in the blank.

 

If you fill in the blank, you are giving power to the thug and permitting rape in that situation.

 

 

 

 

If the anti is a man:

An armed thug is going to kill your kid. The thug is advancing on your kid. You have no choice, either it is you taking action or your kid is dead.

 

Fill in the blank: You cannot be allowed to use a _________________ to stop the murder.

 

The correct answer is you don't fill in the blank.

 

If you fill in the blank, you are giving power to the thug and permitting murder in that situation.

 

 

 

 

So, what do you think of this?

 

The goal of these questions is to attack the argument that one should not have the right to own a [insert weapon here] to defend oneself or anyone they love.

[TRJ]

I think that the kill your kid one is more persuasive for either gender.

[Euler]

I think trying to convince an anti-2A that self-defense is a human right won't work. They're already convinced that it's not, which is why they think that only murderers would want to own firearms.

 

However, I do think it's probably the correct approach to convince non-firearm owners who aren't necessarily anti-2A. Those people aren't "fence-sitters." They're just people who don't place firearm issues at the top of their list of priorities. Nevertheless they constitute the majority of the population. If self-defense is to survive as a right, these are the people who need to be sold on the idea. The other side is certainly trying to convince them that self-defense is immoral and unethical.

 

As such, I don't think focusing on the weapon is the place to start. Focus on the right itself.

 

Scenario: An assailant is attacking you.

• Is it okay to use force to defend yourself?
• If yes to #1 and he is attacking you with lethal force (i.e., intends to kill or permanently disable you, possibly as his primary intent, possibly as his means of forcing compliance with some lesser intent, like rape or robbery), is it okay to use lethal force to defend yourself?
• If yes to #2, what weapons are okay to use in self-defense?

There are people who will answer #1 negatively. They believe that the only response to any attack should be to run away and call for help and that any attempt by a victim to use force for self-defense makes (or should make) the victim just as guilty of a crime as the assailant. Don't dwell on those people. The best you can do is state that you believe that self-defense is a right, then walk away. Spend your time and energy on someone who can imagine themselves fighting for their lives.

[Hipshot Percussion]

Guns and those who exercise their Second Amendment Rights stand in the way of their Utopian worldview. Because of this, there isn't any way to frame the argument - as to them, there is no argument, only mouth-breathing dullards like us who have outlived our usefulness. The quicker they back us down, put us in our place and enslave us, the quicker they move on to their Arcadian life. Their belief in their own omnipotence is staggering and is only surpassed by their narcissism.

 

When they watch "Demolition Man," they cheer for Cocteau.

[BobPistol]

I think trying to convince an anti-2A that self-defense is a human right won't work. They're already convinced that it's not, which is why they think that only murderers would want to own firearms.

 

There are those who hate all kinds of violence, including self-defense. They believe there is no reason to ever use violence, even in self defense.

 

Those people will never be convinced by logic or reason or any argument. Period.

 

I'm not looking at convincing them. They can't be convinced.

 

 

However, I do think it's probably the correct approach to convince non-firearm owners who aren't necessarily anti-2A. Those people aren't "fence-sitters." They're just people who don't place firearm issues at the top of their list of priorities. Nevertheless they constitute the majority of the population. If self-defense is to survive as a right, these are the people who need to be sold on the idea. The other side is certainly trying to convince them that self-defense is immoral and unethical.

 

As such, I don't think focusing on the weapon is the place to start. Focus on the right itself.

 

Scenario: An assailant is attacking you.

• Is it okay to use force to defend yourself?
• If yes to #1 and he is attacking you with lethal force (i.e., intends to kill or permanently disable you, possibly as his primary intent, possibly as his means of forcing compliance with some lesser intent, like rape or robbery), is it okay to use lethal force to defend yourself?
• If yes to #2, what weapons are okay to use in self-defense?

 

 

This looks like a good question. I agree, we must convince the fence sitters to join the pro-2A side. They're not going to be convinced to do so if we say "the government will turn corrupt and turn into Nazi Germany, defend yourself from them!" or "You have the right to own any kind of weapon, even tanks and rocket launchers." The last one is the one I'm trying to disarm - because the ants have done a good job of planting the ridiculous idea into many people's heads. That's why I ask "You cannot use a ____ to stop the rape/murder." The correct answer is not to fill in the blank. Nobody should have their human rights cut down to zero little by little.

 

The only issue I see is that many people wrongly think "lethal force" means you must shoot/maim/kill them. That is not always the case, one can use lethal force (i.e. draw a gun and threaten to shoot and most times that's enough). So I'd change the word "lethal force" to something else. Otherwise, it raises a question that may lead to the idea you're trying to plant, be derailed.

[chicagoresident]

Guns and those who exercise their Second Amendment Rights stand in the way of their Utopian worldview. Because of this, there isn't any way to frame the argument

The antis are already living in their whitebread utopian suburbs where the cops show up at a minutes notice the second a black kid knocks on a door to ask for money for a sport/cause. They unironicically have the "immigrants welcome" sign on the lawn their undocumented Mexican landscaping crew is cutting.

 

You cannot convince these people that they need the protection provided from owning a gun. They already have protection.

 

The only place they don't have protection is in their schools. School shootings seem to favor more affluent areas. Every neighbor with a kid that owns guns is viewed as a threat to their kid. So civilian disarmament in their minds is a simple solution to what's actually a way more complex problem. You won't be able to argue this. You'll at best be able to split the difference on hardening and armed police at schools.

 

 

This is why you need to flip the script not on their own protection, but on enabling those less fortunate then them to protect themselves. This is the only way you will even win against their arguments. The dialog hits all the lefty talking points; class struggle, racist police, Chiraq, the racist justice system, etc.

 

Reinforce all their beliefs, then add gun control is racist/discriminates into that dialog.

 

Explain that AR15's are popular because they are the most affordable gun. Explain how the features like an adjustable stock and foregrip would allow a person with physical disabilities to operate a gun. Or a person who doesn't have the strength to rack the slide on a handgun.

 

Then admit you own guns because you too are afraid of people like Trump getting elected and marching white supremacists to the doorsteps of black people. Talk about the gun in civil rights history.

[JTHunter]

This isn't so much an pro-2A discussion as it is a "freedom" question.

Some people I talk with I will ask them their feelings on things like abortion and the death penalty. Then I ask who are the politicians that are for abortion but against the death penalty. If they answer honestly, I also ask them why these people are in favor of killing infants that have done nothing at all, much less anything "evil", yet they don't want to put down the "mad dogs" of the world who ARE doing all kinds of evil.

This is more to make them think about the politicians that are taking away their "choices" while leaving the dregs of society to attack and destroy our lives.

 

Just sayin'....

[BobPistol]

This isn't so much an pro-2A discussion as it is a "freedom" question.

 

 

I'm trying to paint it as a human rights question. How far can one's human right of self defense be infringed? 2A says "shall not be infringed" This argument is an attempt to show that is the case.