Wednesday, August 18, 2010

An interesting conversation I had with an Anti-gunner

I was recently talking with a man that I didn't know owned any guns, and we got to talking about how important they were, not just for home protection, but for the protection of liberty.   It didn't take long for an aquaintence of ours who was anti-gun to hop into that conversation, here's kinda how it went down.

She claimed that no one should have a gun, because they're dangerous, and powerful.  My counter was that automobiles are dangerous and powerful, and cause more deaths per year than guns, how come we're not banning cars?   She retorted with cars having the singular purpose of transportation, killing people is not what they were designed to do.   I further postulated to her, so if I designed a hammer, that could fire a projectile, but was mainly designed to hammer nails, this would make that specific gun a useful tool by your standards?   She responded that there is a flaw in my logic, but she didn't know where, she just thinks no one should have any weapons.   Being a short, generally out of shape guy, I postulated a new question for her based off her last statement, I asked if a 275 lb 6'6" MMA trained individual should have his hands, and a few toes removed, because technically he is now a very powerful weapon, I saw one of those almost kill a man a few weeks ago at a party in one punch.  She once again hid behind there being some type of flaw in my logic that she just couldn't put her finger on.  

Since everytime I made her think, it backed her into a corner in which she couldn't logically climb out of, she turned it around to me having bad logic, I changed gears, and asked her if Police should be allowed to carry guns.   She claimed that no one, even police should be carrying guns.   I thanked her for being consistent with her view, most people who are anti-gun have an ill-concieved world view that police officers are better people than everyone else.   Next I asked if she thought the military should have weapons.  Her response was less logical than before, which was of course they should.    I asked exactly what would stop those military men from deciding the people had what they wanted, and were not capable of fighting back.   She couldn't think of anything.   I then stated that militaries throughout history have enacted control over the people, in the Roman empire, disrespecting a soldier could have someone put to death, it is the killer of all free though, and free will.   She said that she doesn't think I have my history right.   I told her to have a great day, and thanked her for the conversation.  

It was really enlightening, because every time I made a great point that made her core being agree with me, her irrational fear became exposed through a vague statement of something being wrong with me, or my logic.   This means that gun-control advocates can't be convinced of the importance of the right to keep and bear arms, which means further that gun-control, and a lot of other leftist ideals, are more of a religion to them, and less of a political theory.   They are a core belief structure, which leaves me to one scary, terrible thought to leave with:  We're not fighting for rights, we're fighting a holy war that will never end.

No comments:

Post a Comment