Mine is as follows:

The second amendment, a collective right or an individual right?

The collective right model of the second amendment is incorrect for the following reasons. #1= It is a part of the bill of rights. The bill of rights was written to guarantee that certain civil rights could not be infringed upon by government. (state or federal).
#2=The collective rights model of the second amendment points to the prefix  “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”. To determine what this prefix means we need to know what a well regulated militia is. According to the US Constitution a well regulated militia is:
The modern militia statute, 10 U.S.C. § 311 provides:
"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard”.
So, obviously according to the constitution  (with the exception of female citizens) the Army National Guard is not the militia. If the constitution doesn’t convince you that the national guard is not the militia the lets try the US Supreme Court. In Perpich vs DOD 1990 the US Supreme Court ruled that the National Guard is NOT the militia described in the constitution but that the National Guard is an integral part of the Department of Defense and the United States Army.

Take them to the range.

Point a gun at them and say "betcha wish you had a gun now, don'tcha!"

[bounce]

LOL


Actually, the range is a good idea. They always have a blast.

I don't.

I own it because I want it.

Sgtar15

Alot of anti gunners could not care less about the Constitution, they just want guns outlawed. How do you guys counter them ?

Take 'em to the range. Most liberal POS have very addictive personalities, if they feel the power of a gun they will buy one for sure. When they buy the gun they will eventually become non-liberal as they start to see things in a new light. Work's on all the semi anti's I have tried, don't know about hard core ones yet.

I always say:

"Why would nine out of the first ten amendments to the Constitution guarantee personal rights with one amendment guaranteeing the rights of a government entity (the military, National Guard, etc.)?  From a simple point of consistency, that doesn't even make sense."

Also:

"The Second Amendment is just that; the second most important entry into the Bill of Rights.  The Founding Fathers placed an extremely high value on the citizen's right to defend themselves and keep their government obedient to the governed."

Since antis seem to think the only people who should have firearms are active military and police, I tell them the following:  The police come to the scene of violent crimes [i]after[/i] they are committed.  You could talk to quite a few victims of violent crimes that would confirm this, but they're too busy pushing up daisies right now to chat.  They seem to get that really blank stare afterwards when they realize that traffic crimes really are one of the few "crimes" the police witness.  

I give them a few scenarios where the only possible way out with your life is for you and only you, to take action, without regards to consequences to your life.

Then I tell them that even though there are millions of firearms out there, large numbers of them are owned by the same people and they are rarely used.  And when they are used, they are used for hunting and target shooting.

So many of the antis including IL Gov. George Ryan seem to think that because a criminal uses a firearm in a crime, that they should be punished more.  I tell them one guy just shot someone to death, one guy just stabbed someone to death and one guy just beat someone to death.  Are you going to tell the families of the last two victims that their killers are going to spend less time in prison because they used a knife or their hands to commit murder.

Of course there are some antis who say that "they didn't have weapons like an AK or AR when the Bill of Rights was written".  Then you have to jump them about there not being radio or tv back then either to use as a soapbox for free speech.  This usually shuts them up...for a while anyway.

Then finally, I usually ask them if [i]they[/i] own a gun.  Their silence or stumbling for words speaks volumes and gives away their hypocrisy.

As mentioned by Philadelphia_GunMan, most liberals couldn't care less about the Constitution.  

To be honest, if it wasn't for stumbling upon this site and a few like it several years ago, I would have experienced no reinforcement as to even the existence of the Constitution.  We studied it for a half hour in high school.  I probably skipped that day anyway.  After that, nothing what-so-ever.  The Amendments/Articles of the Constitution should be printed on billboards in every city across the country.  No pro-message, no anti-message, let them make up their own minds.

Most "anti-gunners" I've met are actually fence sitters who don't really know either way, but they'll side with whatever their friends/family tend to say.  Why be different concerning matters you are ignorant of?

Real "anti-gunners" are about as easy to convert as anyone else who has surrendered logic to the powers of faith.  

If they're "anti"-gunners you really aren't going to convert them.  If they're [i]fence-sitters[/i] there's several ways.

Self-protection:  You have to get them to understand that the government (via the police) [i]has no duty to protect you[/i].  Your safety is literally your responsibility.  The cops [i]may/might/could/should[/i] help, but there aren't enough of them to intervene when you are in danger.  And in court case after court case the law says they don't have a duty to protect [i]YOU[/i], just [i]society[/i].

Law:  As mentioned above, the right to arms is an individual one.  Get a transcript of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals [i]Emerson[/i] decision for them to read.  Discuss the legal history of the right to arms, starting with [i]Dred Scott[/i] and progressing through [i]Cruikshank[/i] and [i]Miller[/i], culminating in [i]Emerson[/i].  Get a copy of Sanford Levinson's [i]"The Embarrassing Second Amendment"[/i].  Get a copy of Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran's "[i]A Farewell to Arms[/i]" as a counterpoint.

Recreation:  Take 'em to the range.

Tell'em what happened to the Korean grocers who didn't defend their businesses during the '92 L.A. riots. Those folks lost 10-20 years of the lives, and many couldn't even rebuild their businesses because the L.A. City council ruled that they had too many auto repair shops and liquor stores in that area.

To the above I sometimes mention that mostly the police are in the business of SOLVING crimes.  Tough to prevent someone from kicking in your door and.................. before your door has been kicked in.

It really depends upon what kind of anti-gunner it is with whom I'm speaking.

A. If it's one that thinks he has a rational / utilitarian argument, I'll rationally pick apart his argument with logic. (1) There are too many utilitarian facts that favor private gun ownership such as the inability of police to be everywhere and the inverse correlation between private gun ownership rates and crime rates. (2) I'd detail the flaws in their arguments and the pseudo-science fallacies that are espoused by typical anti-gunners. (3) I'd also point out that, Constitutionally speaking, guaranteed rights may be in direct opposition to what is favored by utilitarianism but are guaranteed nonetheless -- that the guarantees of certain rights that we enjoy are often in spite of (not because of) their level of popularity.
If they are truly grounded in rational thinking, their position is weakened and some hope is born.

B. If it's one that's anti-gun because he's never had reason to think otherwise, I'll simply invite him to the range. Very often, these people have an anti-gun sentiment based upon unfamiliarity and fear. I'd even spotlight their fear; if a guy breaks into your house with a gun, you're going to be terrified but if a cop shows up with the very same kind of gun, you're going to be relieved. So it can't be the gun that's the problem. Typically, if they accept my invitation and come to the range, they'll see the cameraderie, the families, the fun, etc. and their position starts to soften.

C. If it's an anti-gunner that's firmly entrenched for whatever reason (e.g. Schumer, Feinstein), I don't even bother. I've spent enough energy trying with people like this to have come to the realization that I'm just spinning my wheels. Despite the logic of approach A or the enjoyment of approach B, these people refuse to budge. That kind of dogmatic thinking is near impossible to change. My time is better spent getting people who are closer to the fence to swing over to our side.

Two to the chest one to the head.


Gets the point across.