Wish there was a solution to this conundrum, however it is a political weapon. Pandora’s box has been opened.

The democrats will use any firearm tragedy they can to up there base. Guns are evil we need “common sense” laws, and or (worse) ban. A lesson learned from Adolph “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”

If some how there was a way to make it non-partisan, how would you know who to vote for? That of course assumes that 2A rights are a top issue for you. Especially if a candidate you like has no vote record on 2A proposed legislation.

Ask them (if they dislike Trump)
Do you want Donald Trump to have your medical records?
1639 waives your right to medical privacy with no sunset provision. You may like the people in power now, but someday someone you don't like will be in power and will be able to use this flaw to the fullest extent of the law, which means accessing ANY of your medical records.

Ask them if they like the massive tab cost for their car.
Did you vote for the mass transit bill because it sounded like a good idea? Now do you think it's a good idea after getting your tab tax bill? Read beyond the headline. I have. 1639 is a mess...

'I don't need them so you don't either'

I think it's hard to make a logical argument VS an emotional one.

I can't tell you how many discussions I've entered into and went full bore with statistics and examples disproving everything about gun control, and the people I've talked to generally think my statistics/facts are false, or settle into 'it doesn't matter you don't need it they're just for killing'. Or something similar.

I finally had to stop arguing, and now when anyone asks me 'how many children have to die before we ban guns?' instead of pointing out that more kids die of sports injuries and allergic reactions at school, I just say 'all of them'.

All mass shootings have one thing in common.. A nut job.

Can't talk about the 13% of the population responsible for 52% of the murders. That's racist.

Can't talk about those murders being a net gain for society because it's usually drug dealers shooting other dealers and the like.

I crunched all the numbers, and removing gang violence and suicides, there's about 2k legit 'random' murders with firearms each year. That would put us near dead last in terms of per capita firearm homicides.

But you can't talk about that.

I've tried the whole 'tyranny' thing and point out how they think Trump is Hitler to counter their 'this isn't nazi Germany' line that always follows such a statement, and again... It gets dismissed.

So, I'm at a loss, personally.

I don't think it can be resolved as long as you have people that aren't willing to listen.

You can steer fence sitters, but once they're on their side of the fence, they will defend that line to the death, with few exceptions... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they're on the wrong side of the fence.

I was talking to a lady about DGUs and said how can you take away other women’s rights to defend themselves from rape and other violent crime. She said well I’ve never been raped and look at all the people dying of mass shootings. I said okay you’ve never been raped but have you ever been a victim of a mass shooting?

She got a little upset and told me I’m too stubborn on the 2a. What?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not going to bash but I'll explain why you can't.

2A is about individual freedom and empowering it. Statist types who like big government and think they know what's best for you will never want you to have that kind of freedom. Also, 2A is the last defense against tyranny and the kind of huge state that progressives want is impossible with an armed populace. Sawant and Sanders are only the beginning, there are more to come and they'll be even worse.

For short term periods you can inspire interest by having someone they hate in office MAYBE, but notice how that's not working with Trump. They are STILL pushing gun control even though they claim Trump is fascist and a tyrant.

perhaps try to equate the police and the fire dept, a gun and a fire extinguisher.

Neither tool is supposed to do the complete job, they just buy you time until the professionals arrive.

I think the place to start is by asking people that self-declare themselves to be liberal/democrats, but also gun owners/supporters, how they rationalize their beliefs. How do they claim to be gun supporter, but still liberal? How do they claim to be liberal, but still support guns? See if you can identify a pattern that applies to them, and then figure out how to use that pattern to apply to others.

I think it's far easier to convince people to stop being democrat/liberal than it is to make democrats more friendly to guns.

As the more extreme fringe elements of the left keep saying things like Medicaid for all, 50-90% top tax rates, "basic income", repealing the 2nd Amendment we can convince more of the libertarian leaning dema, classical Dems and independents to ditch the democrat party.

We get all those and we don't need the rest.

As for most of the life long democrats and hardcore ones, you aren't going to reach them.

I wonder if the left can reasonably discuss/debunk this:

Having personally been pilloried on this site for being a moderate Democrat, I can tell you--there is no non-partisan solution to support of the 2A as long as every time someone who is cool with guns but not cool with the political climate is wholesale attacked for his or her views.

It's just not going to happen. Go ahead, keep throwing rocks--you're just digging your own grave.

So how do we get democrats to be more gun friendly?

The reasoning in Heller is that you can't ban guns in common use (this came up today during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing). If we elect democrats to power and before we can change their hearts/minds on guns and they decide to ban guns and the ban sits and goes into effect and reduces the supply, then how long will it take before they change their minds and what's the point if they've already banned guns by then?

I don't see anything in the democrat party's approach on guns as being caused by character attacks from the right. In actuality it's their belief that guns themselves are magical living things that result in death and their party platform is getting stronger in that direction all the time. If the NRA ceased to exist as well as all politicians opposing them they wouldn't stop trying to ban guns. How do we know that? Look at Canada. They are on the verge of a total semi-auto ban right now and there isn't a huge pro-gun lobby or gun-rights politicians there "attacking" the people pushing for the ban.

Joe McDermott in king County has said he wants to kick down your door and take your glock pistol away. Do you support him? He was a democrat running for Congress and now he's the chair of the county council. He has stated that if state preemption is repealed (not a huge stretch to imagine if 1639 passes, AGR will go for that next) that he WILL come take your gun away. Given that "officer safety" will relegate that to 3am no-knock raids what happens if/when gun owners resist? Someone on the MS-Gun alias was musing about that. Voting for democrats isn't just a vote to seize guns, it's a vote to murder people if/when they resist.

I like that. Short and sweet

.

the issue with the left is not just guns/2A.
1A, marxist indoctrination, immigration, healthcare, taxes, the list is pretty long
i don't think we could reasonably argue one without the other, and if the leftists were in charge they would impose their ideology and policies, wait for it, at the point of a gun!
i think we're past the reasonable discussion point. pretty much all we can do now is expose the leftists for what they are - communists, and hope for the rest of the nation to wake up to the nightmare that is at their front door.

I'm going to guess that you would be pilloried on left leaning sites for being pro-gun.

Supporting and actively campaigning for an anti-gun politician who wants "Australian style gun 'buybacks'" also know as confiscation, is digging your own grave.

However, having said that, I understand that for some, their gun ownership is tied to personal self defense or fun and not defense from big government. I understand that their perception of social justice is tied to a specific political party and to some their perception of human dignity is more important than their rights and freedoms. It is a hard place to be, and I can't say I'm jealous.

Personally I believe neither political party has our best interests in mind and I believe that President Trump is a giant douch canoe who is really lucky. I do like his tax plan and so far pick of Supreme court justices although the most recent seems to be less freedom oriented that the first (change my mind). President Trump (and a Republican controlled Congress) also has done very little to cement gun rights and advance bills like the HPA and similar.

I believe the only difference between Republicans and Democrats in Congress is the increments in which we will lose our 2A rights and how angry the people will be about it. Both parties want control, and neither wants to give power to the people. They talk a big game, and do what they please with little accountability. I vote for my perception of the lesser increments, but knowing it wont matter in the end.

I'm just sitting here waiting for the day a dying tree gets its bath.