I think it would be very interesting to invite some Democratic Talk Radio (or others since DTR is kind of small) people to a gun debate in somewhat neutral territory.

Pros:
1. It might make us look good if we invite people to debate who have banned us from their conversation.
2. It might better aquaint us with the "enemy".
3. It would be a good chance to prove we are not "nuts" (well, not all of us, at least [;)])

Cons:
1. There is always the chance that one or more AR15.com'ers could be asses (I don't care if the Anti's are asses...it just looks better for us).
2. We do not necessarily want to draw attention to some of the content on this site (ie. cat killing posts, etc).


Maybe a separate debate forum?  It may require heavy moderation though.

Feel free to shoot the idea down or add to it, I haven't given it a whole lot of thought yet.  Just an idea.

Hell yes! dude that would be very fun.

Libs come up with some very funny crap.[:D]

I don't think it would work.  To many emotions involved.  Do you think that [b]they[/b] may change your mind?  Do you think you can change theirs?

It would turn into one large name-calling-bitch-fest.  I would not recommend that we advertise this wonderful site to the anti's.  If we even had 20 anti's posting here a day - our discussions would be a useless waste of energy.

It would be great "if" it would work.  But to many people grow balls sitting behind their screens.

To persuade them to think our way it usually requires face to face sit around the campfire conversation.

We can't debate these people for the same reason garandman and I can't "debate" religion....he believes he knows god exists, I believe he doesn't.  Each side proceeds from totally opposed assumptions which are not open to discussion.

In other words, you can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into.

Better put...don't try to teach a pig to sing...you waste your time, and annoy the pig.

(Ummm...that last was certainly no reference to the opening, analogy, garandman)

If you've ever read t.p.g on usenet, you'll know what that forum would turn into.  A handful of extremely rightous antis (Like the idiot who continually posts how the Miller case proves that there is no individual right) a handful of anti trolls that never respond, a large number of informed, intelligent RKBA-ers debunking the anti's, and an equally large number of RKBA-ers self-combusting due to anger.

The main purpose of a debate should not be to convert somebody over to your belief, but to share ideas, change their perception. even if they do not agree with you; they still have to take in what you say.

The more you try to change someone's beleifs, the more they will resist your efforts, people dont like to be proven wrong. just bounce idea off of people. who knows maybe some will set in, maybe not.

openminded debating lib

why not create a forum for debating gun control here at the board. if i had my own computer i would be glad to become a moderator for such a thing.

the legal forum should only deal with strict legal issues, but would be helpfull when researching firearm related cases. the general discussion board which is trafficked by an astounding number should be seperate from a debate forum due to newcomers and information seekers.

i've debated with dems and socialists before. i dont always "win" but winning is not what is important only the sharing of information and altering perception

let'em in lib

I stopped posting and reading talk.politics.guns some years back (when I finished school and they shut down my computer account). For quite some time I was a real regular t.p.g participent. And I agree with you about 100%.

I once was posting to a thread that John Lott posted to. And I and some others debated (Peter?) Weir (sp?) when he came on to "debate" Lott by taking quotes from Kleck out of context (he got handed his ass on this).

The Miller thing sounds like something Raygun would pull; I remember Raygun admiting once that, yes, Miller was based upon the shotgun's status, not Miller lack of status in any militia. He then went on to claim that if the shotgun [i]was[/i] protected, the court would have gone on to reject Miller's 2nd Amend rights based upon Miller's lack of standing in a militia!

I also remember an argument of the effect of the '76 DC handgun ban. The number of homicides went down after the ban, but so did the population. The per capita homicide rate remained stable. Raygun's interpretation was that the people who left DC were the good ones, and the homicide rate would have risen without the ban. He's a smart guy, and not at all ashamed to hang on to the silliest thread of an argument--but he never admits he was ever wrong.

One thing though: participation is a great learning experience. Just don't get heartbroken when you find out you can't convince the antis. I always figured that their were some fenced sitting lurkers we might be winning to our side.

You know guys "FULL RANGE"
may be on to some thing here.

It would be a bicth fest and thats ok with me , there funny when there mad[:D]

The bad thing is that AR15.COM would in  time be in the press as a buch of gun loving nuts and we don't need to give them more ammo.
The anti-gunners can make any thing ammo for them cuz people just don't know better we should take it easy when it comes to the public.