Woman concealed carry gun in purse
Bigstock

By Robert A. Margulies, MD

At a recent social event, my wife was engaged in a conversation with the wife of an associate. I half listened in until I realized that the conversation had turned to the topic of gun control.

It became more interesting when I learned that the other woman had been a United States Marine, and had been part of the security detail for one of our better known and highly esteemed presidents. She has a Washington State CPL and although we were in Oregon at the time, I didn’t question whether or not she had one from that state as well.

It was most interesting, given her background, that she was purse carrying, and that she walked away from her purse for an extended period of time. I noted the above as she expressed her position in favor of stricter gun laws. She believes that most people — herself excluded, of course — would not be competent or fit to carry a firearm.

At that point I inserted myself into the conversation. I took quiet, but definitive exception to her position and I asked her ‘the question’. That question, of course, is, “What law of any kind has prevented a crime? “

She was clearly taken aback and couldn’t answer the question, but proceeded to offer a flurry of comments in favor of red flag laws, which I deflected by repeating the question. She then drifted into the subject of law enforcement and the need for laws and enforcement. I took the opportunity to remind her that enforcement of the law is punishment, not prevention.

There is no prevention in apprehending and punishing a criminal. The crime has already been committed because the criminal doesn’t obey the law. She was flustered a bit and then chose to break off the conversation.

I’m personally quite satisfied with the outcome, but I’ve come to the conclusion that people with her mentality will not be changed by any pleasing argument. Or by partial acquiescence to any of their premises.

We honest citizens must come to the sure and certain understanding that there will be no satisfaction on the part of those who consider themselves “elite“ until they are the only ones in possession of the tools of armed self-defense. They have no concept of Constitutional existence. Their false pretensions of rationality are clearly negated by their lack of common sense and performance.

It is my considered opinion that they truly have no understanding of that which they are proposing. They believe that the police will do the dirty work for them and go house to house confiscating firearms.

Except where police are corrupt, that will not happen. Every police officer whom I know personally has firearms at home for themselves and family members. None of them are willing to have those firearms confiscated, leaving their families at the mercy of criminals who would not hesitate to do that which criminals do.

My comment at the end of our conversation was, “It will be interesting when those who don’t have guns assume that they will be able to take guns away from the people that have them.”

 

Robert A. Margulies, MD, MPH, FACEP, FACPM is an emergency medicine specialist, retired Navy Medical Corps captain, sworn peace officer, and firearm trainer with multiple certifications from the NRA and the Massad Ayoob Group.

This article originally appeared at drgo.us and is reprinted here with permission. 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

129 COMMENTS

  1. You can not use reason, logic and facts to argue someone out of a position that they did not use reason, logic and fact to get into

    • Arguing with a Leftist on the Constitution is akin to arguing religion because replacing the Constitution is the religion of the Left,conversations with the left are pointless.

    • Right. Gun controllers argue from the standpoint of their feelings and are primarily interested in passing laws that symbolize their social values. They are actually not very interested in gun-laws being effective. Once they’re demonstrated their social power by getting some completely illogical law passed, they’re happy.

    • And ‘the elite’ don’t give a damn about logic, or your rights. “They” are the only ones allowed, and they want it that way. Everything done in the name of that control is both condoned and supported, in pursuit of “The Narrative”.

  2. There is no debating rights, there is only fighting for them. The only response to gun control advocacy is “fuck you, I will kill you over this. Set up or shut up.”

    Tolerance is how you lose. Enforcing reciprocity is how you win. They won’t hesitate to use violence if you resist.

  3. Dear Doctor, it would have been worth mentioning to her the incompetence she displayed by leaving her off body carry unattended. Might have been a crime too, depending on state and local infringements.

  4. I would have called bullshit on her,her hypocrisy;and her ” implied superiority based on service/significant security detail experience”. I say that as a veteran and long term security professional myself.
    I don’t buy into the ” Entitled Sheepdog Mentality”that afflicts segments of both the public and private sector. Her DD214 and paystubs mean nothing more than mine or yours with respect to Natural Rights.
    And her having that outlook has me considering her to be an ” Ex Marine” vs a ” Former Marine”.
    In short: Fuck Her. And Fuck Them.

    • Don’t assume military people are special or smarter than anyone else simply because they’re an officer or a proud owner of a DD214. Some of them aren’t worth the uniform they wear, or the rank.
      I once had a run-in with a female Air Force lieutenant on her way to pick up a friend for a hen birthday party. She had the unmitigated gall to question my taste in reading material after noticing a couple gun magazines on the living room table as the group of women waited around.
      “Who would read such things? Are THOSE YOURS?”
      I asked her two things.
      “As an officer in the US military why would you even ask that of an Army vet, and second, do you make it a habit to insult strangers in their own home?”
      That ended the little hen get-together quite quickly. One of the women asked if I’d be going along and I told her no, saying not only was I NOT invited, I wouldn’t be good company. She was the only courteous one in the group.
      Interestingly enough, this group of moonbats were assigned to Andrews AFB and were involved with doing the itinerary and scheduling of Air Force One during the Clinton years.
      Sickening.

    • Everyone wants to be big and important and puff up his chest at times, some people much more than others.

      Some humbler folks in her position would hold onto the discipline, integrity, and persistence of being a Marine, and given her role, realize the importance of individual self defense, especially since she knows just how many resources go into protecting one guy, the president.

      What we have here sounds like someone on the other end of the spectrum, same experience and same role, but likely reminds others that SHE was a Marine, that SHE got was in a super special tactical elite role, guarding the PRESIDENT (and maybe even plays the “woman” angle also, not sure). She was well trained with firearms, maybe even would call herself an “expert”.
      Naturally, part of her self-image is her being an elite tactical force, so has this instinct to have other “normal” citizens below her be under the wise protection of her and her special tactical brotherhood. I would say it’s an identity issue.

      Citizens knowing how to use guns for defensive purposes with only minimal training is unimaginable to her elite “specially trained” mind.

      • Always found the specially trained aspect hilarious. Most civilian rifle and especially pistol courses are way more involved than anything I saw for the military. Maybe the personal protection course has something more than typical. Either way the training on mil side always seemed to be lowest common denominator.

  5. I’d have to disagree. Logic can win people over – maybe not right away, but at least you’re giving them a different perspective to consider.

      • Some are too stupid to be bothered with even when presented with reality.
        Like G. Peter duPont says, f*ck them.
        They’re going to believe as they will and it’s not my duty to save them from their ignorance.

    • It’s possible, but I wouldn’t count on it.

      Most people base their opinions entirely on their own emotions, not on logic (their own or anyone else’s). Logic merely justifies the decision after the fact. Some people can be persuaded by logic, but only if they’re emotionally receptive to the idea first.

    • Not so sure about that….people hear what they want to hear, and most will only accept what supports their established worldview. It’s a small percentage of people who still retain critical thinking skills and are able to process logic. Not that this makes my statement any more true, but I don’t think logic is taught anymore in higher education?

      • Circa 2012 it was within most of my core classes. But most of my professors were retired police so ………

    • It is at least worth attempting to use logic with anti gun people. Worst case scenario they disagree and see that a pro gun person was polite and had a thought out argument. If they flip out then that’s on them to embarrass themselves and their side. But a lot of the time I have seen them at least be puzzled to hear that one of their talking points is a blatant fallacy. That’s a start.

      • “If they flip out then that’s on them to embarrass themselves and their side.”

        That’s my goal. Make stupid people say stupid things in public.

      • I generally take a pass on these sort of conversations these days. It took me a while, but I finally figured out it would be more productive talking to a brick. Nonetheless, I will on occasion jump into the fray, not with any expectation that I’m going to alter someone’s point of view. I still think it’s important to “bust their bubble” and let them know that there is indeed an opposing point of view, and it’s just as valid as theirs whether they like it or not. I think this is especially useful when confronted with a group who are just reinforcing each others opinions– there’s some value to be had in letting them know they don’t have a monopoly on the subject.

  6. A lot of people don’t seem to get punishment isn’t prevention. Sometimes I get the impression they honestly believe with just the right punishment they can somehow bring back the dead or reverse the Earth’s rotation and erase past events.

    What? There was a restraining order? Well, then I guess she’s still alive.
    Extra funny here because in the past 3 days I think 3 or 4 women have been stabbed or beaten to death by their “restrained by order” partners. Gives me a chuckle every time.

    If the rights of 200 million people who had no involvement whatsoever in the event should be infringed upon that’s a small price to pay for the miracle of time travel or resurrection.

    • Some people can be discussed with threats of punishment. And the needed punishment varies greatly between groups of people.

      For some social sanction and a slap on the wrist is enough.
      For others being flayed alive is what it takes.
      This is one of the unseen costs of diversity, it makes equality before the law untenable.

  7. It still amazes me that the anti-gunners still think that making a thing illegal will prevent crime.
    Drugs are illegal and the drug users still have them.
    Speeding is illegal, people speed.
    Hitting a little kid is illegal, people beat little kids.
    Drunk driving is illegal, people do it.
    Etc…etc…etc…nothing new.

    • “It still amazes me that the anti-gunners still think that making a thing illegal will prevent crime.”

      Precisely. In the larger arena, where politics rule, not principle, there is nothing of significant value to be gained (politically, and that is all that counts) in holding any conversation with people known to be opposed to gun ownership for the masses. Not enough converts available to move the political needle. Just tell elite snobs, “Not to worry. If I were ever to have a gun, and you needed rescuing from an attacker, your wish would be honored; I’ll call 911, and hope for the best.”

      (the above was posted originally to the wrong thread; mea culpa)

  8. “Hell hath no fury like the ass-kicked Liberal… All we have to do is beat the shit out of all of them, and they will all get a gun…” Clint Smith

  9. Laws actually are a deterrent. Plenty of people have been deterred by the threat of punishment — including me.

    I’ll be honest, there are three or four people in the world who owe their continued healthy existence to the fact that I considered hurting them not worth the punishment I’d inevitably receive.

    The thing is, the deterrent effect is impossible to measure and it’s marginal at best. No law will ever stop anything that people *really* want to do.

    If I had been truly determined to do something to those people, no law could have stopped me; but I’m fundamentally peaceful, so I put aside the desire to do violence, even though they would’ve richly deserved it.

    But the world is chock-full of people who don’t share my scruples. No law will stop them, so I have to be ready to do it myself…which is where our Second Amendment civil rights come in.

    • “..Plenty of people have been deterred by the threat of punishment ”

      I always like the do the philosophical questioning at this point with “If you could commit the crime in question and, with 100% certainty, not get caught… would you?”

        • Oh yes, invisibility (for me, my clothes and my duffel bag!!!) and maybe some walking thru walls so I can visit bank vaults at my leisure 🙂

    • “Plenty of people have been deterred by the threat of punishment . . .”

      But not always. When traditional behavior is proscribed by law, people will resort to the practice of “patterned evasion of social norms”. American history is rife with good examples. Junior Johnston made his early reputation hauling bootleg whisky and outrunning the feds in his supercharged 40 Ford, the 55mph speed limit created a whole new subculture of “chronic violators” who used Escort radar-detectors to drive as fast as they wanted to go. People Of The Gun are already figuring out how to manufacture un-numbers lowers on 3-D printers. You can’t stop the signal.

        • It’s an unspoken, unsigned contract between all of us, PG, and it’s the sole reason you’re still able to blather on like the idiot you are.

        • Your imaginary contract is a crock of shit. And no, my ability and right to speak my mind is not based on your imaginary fairy tales. Can’t believe this leftist nonsense is coming from an alleged 2nd Amendment supporter….

          • The “social contract” discussed is the same one understood by the founders. We all agree to abide by the agreement that all would accept and respect the constitution, and the law of the nation and the States. That we would agree to peaceful transition of power between elections. If everyone had taken the stance that “I will please only myself”, we would not have come this far. It is falling apart these days.

    • “Killing is a matter of will, not weapons.
      You cannot control the act itself
      by passing laws about the means employed.”
      The late Col Jeff Cooper, 1958
      Handgun expert and founder of Gunsite Academy

      “Gun violence” must be controlled. We should try a law…..How about God’s “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Ooops, tried that, didn’t work. Enter the “Age of the Assault Rock”
      How about man’s Murder 1; Murder 2; Manslaughter,….. There that will do it. Ooops, those didn’t work.
      Let’s try 22,000+ laws against the “….shall not be infringed.” of The Second Amendment. There, that will surely do it. Ooops, didn’t.
      Well, maybe just one more law from “take them all if I could” Ditzy Diane, “Never worked a day in my life” Bernie, Ole Creepy, Sleepy, Crazy, Fire Two Blasts In The Air Joe, or “keep ’em on the Government Plantation” Crazy, Lazy Lacey Clay.
      Ooops, that ain’t gonna do it either.
      A politician with a law never stops a bad guy with a gun.
      He only controls the good guys….which is his true agenda. Making good people helpless does not make bad people…..or politicians……harmless.

      For once I agree with Bill O’Reilly. Bad guys shooting people is the price of freedom. Liberty is risky business. That’s why our Founding Fathers recognized our God-given right to shoot back.
      History has repeatedly demonstrated that disarming good people in the name of making bad people harmless only eventually facilitates politicians shooting their own countrymen. History…learn from it or be doomed to relive it.

  10. QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE

    Quote—————My comment at the end of our conversation was, “It will be interesting when those who don’t have guns assume that they will be able to take guns away from the people that have them.”————–quote

    New Zealand and Australia did just that and do you think it will not happen in America and much sooner than you think. The U.S. population is fed up with road rage murders and mass murders with nut cases that have assault rifles that slaughter our children while they are in schools or social gatherings. Which group to you think will persevere . The majority of course and they are not the assault rifle lovers.

    • Bullshit. Come and take them.

      DC and every police agency knows what will happen if they try. The fact that you believe those agencies and even the military will commit such treasonous act to acquire peoples self defense weapons, shows me just how stupid you truly are. You have no idea the type of war or the impact it would have trying to do such a thing in America.

      • “””””””””””””””Bullshit. Come and take them.

        DC and every police agency knows what will happen if they try. The fact that you believe those agencies and even the military will commit such treasonous act to acquire peoples self defense weapons, shows me just how stupid you truly are. You have no idea the type of war or the impact it would have trying to do such a thing in America.”””””””””””””””

        Key board bravado is cheap talk but the reality is most all people would obey the law and turn them in “or else” and as the Germans Nazi’s use to say “When we said or else everyone knew what that meant”. The few nut cases that do not obey the law will be eliminated very quickly by smiling sun glass wearing black clothed storm troopers well trained and eager for the kill. Your life expectancy will be in seconds not minutes. And remember anyone who knows you and does not like you will be the first to inform on you guaranteeing extinction as surly as the extinction of the Dodo Bird in early America. Remember too in today’s world of cameras on every street corner and computer records that track your every movement every day you have as much chance of keeping your guns as a snow ball not melting in hell.

        • Don’t be so cocky vlad. I learned from you tonight that mere 9mm will pierce steel at over an astonishing 124 yards. Now, if little 9mm can do that, think of what all our 5.56 and 6.5 godmoor rounds will do to you socialist storm troopers. Not looking good now huh?

        • Very funny.

          I sit in my chair, hold my belly, and laugh at your ignorance.

          Have a nice life, Vlad.

        • HAHA! ok vlad… Nazi germany came for them in the middle of the night. Good luck trying that nationwide in America. Also, those “highly trained stormtroopers” you are telling us all will carry out such treason, are the very ones I just mentioned. They would lose 2/3rd’s of their staff here in America. Those people you think are keen on kicking in innocents doors, would never comply. Also, those gun grabbers who wanted it to all happen, would have their doors kicked in too. How well do you think that would play out? Nazi Germany already happened once. It’s a big part of why it won’t happen in America. Sleep tight cupcake.

        • to V.D. I mean B.D.

          quote——————-Don’t be so cocky vlad. I learned from you tonight that mere 9mm will pierce steel at over an astonishing 124 yards. Now, if little 9mm can do that, think of what all our 5.56 and 6.5 godmoor rounds will do to you socialist storm troopers. Not looking good now huh?———————

          I refer you to David Koresh. The Storm Troopers (when they got tired of playing games) told him to come out “or else” and he found out “what or else meant”. That is real life not your key board bravado and bullshit. History is on my side and I speak from history while you speak from your seat in the out house.

          I might add that 80 some people were slaughtered and the American public did not even yawn. They were personna non-grata with the American public and what do you think they will think about people like you not obeying the laws? The same of course, no one will even yawn when the storm troopers take you out. Again I speak from historical fact while you sling bravado and bullshit.

        • 1. You quoted the wrong person.
          2. Now it’s very clear the level of trolling you will go to (as in the past, when you switch names)
          3. Nobody reads your rants beyond the second or so, reply. Usually, not even the first, especially if it’s 5 paragraphs of nonsense. Every now and then, someone may entertain you only to get a chuckle out of your arguments and your frustrations when you fail – again, because of the levels of trolling you will go to – but for the most part, it just gets skipped over. Much like I just did when you quoted the wrong person. So you can bet that anything beyond this comment that you write, nobody will entertain.

        • “… but the reality is most all people would obey the law and turn them in…”

          Like in New Zealand?
          …and Canada?
          …and several States of the US?
          …and etc.

        • There are already 1,000,000 non compliers in new york state. Thats a few more than the state police.

    • I’m in my last week of 9 week trip to New Zealand. The usual talking heads are worrying that so far compliance with gun grab is under 1%.

      There are shooter licenses here but no registration of firearms yet (proposed last week). So the government doesn’t know who owns what.

      • “””””””””””””””””””I’m in my last week of 9 week trip to New Zealand. The usual talking heads are worrying that so far compliance with gun grab is under 1%.

        There are shooter licenses here but no registration of firearms yet (proposed last week). So the government doesn’t know who owns what.”””””””””””””””””””

        I just read last week that gun owners are beginning to knuckle under as the worry of being caught is putting more and more pressure on them. I would say a few high profile arrests will then cause an avalanche of guns to flood in, its just that the government is playing it cool in the early stages of the confiscation. The hard core nut cases can be eliminated when they get down to the last of the die hards later in time..They know they are doomed and its just a matter of time. Australia was successful and so it will be in New Zealand as well. People are people and they have to look out for number one if they want to go on living outside of jail.

        • You keep referring to people who want to keep their guns, which they have never used to harm anyone or in any crime – as the “law” sees it, as nut cases. Don’t you own guns, vlad? Or at least, claim to? So, you would just hand them over? Knowing that the law just passed to infringe on your ability to own personal property would only get worse from there? They could tax you 500% on anything they want from that point on. All it would take is more “laws”. And you act like the government would just stop them? When, in history, have you ever known any government to grow smaller and want less control? When have they ever actually lowered taxes in anything more than .00001% to the average person? The only nut here, is you. Somehow, you manage to own all these rare guns and carry one, but you advocate that when the government tells you to do something, you just do it. Never question it, or you are a nut job and a criminal.

          Get bent dude. I wish this site would just ban every IP you use and issue created accounts just to keep idiots like you out. Fucking hypocrite.

        • to B.D.

          ”””””””””””””’Get bent dude. I wish this site would just ban every IP you use and issue created accounts just to keep idiots like you out. Fucking hypocrite.”””””””””””””

          Your a typical Right Winger, the first thing people like you want to do is ban free speech and the flow of ideas. To you a one party state with stiff armed salute is what you dream about. Anyone who disagrees with you is labeled a troll. Well I for one am not a coward like you are for it is only the coward that yells troll. If you have no logical rebuttals than take it like a man and quit whining that you got your ass verbally beat.

        • You know nothing about me or my political stance. Right, left… same shit different toilet. The rest of your rant beyond that is not worth acknowledging or reading for that matter. You are pathetic dude. You hold yourself up so high, only to fall so far. One day, that fall will kill you. It’s funny to me how you start out so educated, then eventually it come out… the “I’m not a troll – just admit you got defeated” neckbeard stance you result to is inevitable. It’s why you went on for like a week swapping screen names. That, and the fact that you completely ignored what I said in my rebuttal and only focused on the part where I told you to just shut the fuck up at the end. So easily manipulated, and so easily butthurt. We’ll get there Vlad… We’ll get there. Night kiddo.

    • You, Vlad Tepes, are still the third funniest thing going on this site. You’re funny.

        • Hey, Goeff, chime in at some point for kicks and grins, will ya? Pg2 is Vlad’s alter ego, and he still thinks I’m yours.

          ****
          You’ve said the words “leg humper” umpteen times over the past few weeks, Pg2. Must be the top thing on your mind.

        • Geoff, you’re the troll in your moms basement using multiple profiles….she must be so proud of you.

    • Vlad and we’re fed up with you and all who think like you it will happen someday and many gun grabbers will DIE blood will run in the street’s.for us better to die with our guns blazing than to bow as slaves

      • ””””””””””””””Vlad and we’re fed up with you and all who think like you it will happen someday and many gun grabbers will DIE blood will run in the street’s.for us better to die with our guns blazing than to bow as slaves””””””””””””””

        I will be sure to send your relatives flowers when your untimely demise takes place. Just joking I will not have to do that as you will obey the laws just like everyone else will. Keyboard bravado is cheap, real life not so much.

        • Quit talking like you can back up your words. You sit here and preach about giving up your rights, then complain about the 1st amendment when someone tells you to shut the fuck up. Dude, we all know your kind in real life. You work dead end jobs, if at all, and live at home with your folks. You lie online, and smile to people’s faces in person. You are literally the type of crazy that shoots places up, or joins ANTIFA because of all your misguided rage. You are not fooling anyone, anywhere online. Not even on your favorite facebook page where trolls like you gather to complain and eventually argue with each other too. You just can’t help yourself. Grow up dude. Get a job. Get a life.

        • Don’t worry, Dracula. If it ever (god forbid) gets to shooting between gun grabbing storm troopers and armed patriots, they will not be the only ones bleeding. Those who are pulling the strings and many of those cheering from side lines will find themselves on the wrong side of a rifle very soon.
          Be careful what you wish for, dirty commies like you often find themselves against a wall in tumultuous times.

        • (gets bucket of popcorn, sits in chair, starts stuffing mouth while looking back and forth between “Vlad the Impaler” and “B.D. The Magnificent”)

          ****
          The comments section is more entertaining than any of these articles could ever be (though the Turnbull restorations are a possible contender).

        • This Vlad “person” does not even know anything about flowers and how to use them! LoL!

    • ALL long and mid term surveys show support for substantive gun control has been falling on all 70,60,50,40,30,20, 10 year metrics. And places in the US have lower murder rates than Australia or Canada or the European mean. Australia has had more mass murder of children after gun confiscation than before it.

      Americans are fed up with increasing murder? US murder rate has fallen profoundly in 25 years. The very fact that you invert this basic objective and central fact shows the point of the article: you are unmoved by facts and prefer your lies.

  11. I just like to lead with a bop on the top of the head. Then I say “sit”. Then we can engage in conversation.

  12. After reviewing with my brother-in-law (BIL) all the laws violated in every mass shooting since the Texas Tower event, I asked him to point out any proposed gun control law that would have stopped the shooters. As an alternative, I asked if he had an idea for a law that would prevent mass shootings. BIL noted that it isn’t about finding a magic law, but making it so that a mass shooter will be punished even more severely that would otherwise happen. Then, I asked BIL if he understood the concept of plea bargain?

    • If the government really cared about illegal activity with firearms, they would never allow a gun used in a felony charge to be plea bargained, they would bargain the original felony charge and make the gun crime the one that counted.

    • Another thought would be “Would someone who wanted to murder one or many people abandon their quest for lack of a firearm?”

      • “Another thought would be “Would someone who wanted to murder one or many people abandon their quest for lack of a firearm?” ”

        BIL is not concerned about other weapons, because you can see them coming. And if you only go to nice places, you don’t need to worry about someone pulling a knife. He is concerned about the shooters, and/or the bullets you can’t “see” coming. The randomness of a mass shooting, and the inability to know when to cover before the first bullet hits you.

          • “I’m guessing any talk with him about it just ends up going in circles.”

            Yeah, and my wife hates it when I do it.

            BIL also is convinced that any law that prevents POC from whatever they want is racist, and should be ignored by government agencies.

  13. Given where I live, I’ve talked to a variety of folks with varying levels of gun control opinion. For these folks, my goal is to talk calmly, intelligently, try to understand where they are comming from, and lastly close the conversation with some doubt in their head about their irrational line of thinking. If they ask if I’m a gun owner, I just say, i’m weighing my options to protect my family from bad people with guns.

  14. I don’t waste time trying to convert committed anti-gunners.

    Instead, I work to influence observers by exposing the lies (and it’s ALL lies) and bigotry of the proponents of racially invidious gun controls.

    Normal people don’t like being lied to. They especially don’t like being lied to as if they were mentally handicapped children. Show them that they’re being lied to and they react badly toward those doing the lying.

    • The down side is when trying to find evidence of those lies, most the time they will just refute them because they are used to being countered with links to various articles, and they will just show you a link to an opinion piece article back. In the age of the internet, where opinions trump facts, it’s almost impossible to gain someone’s full attention in an open minded discussion. They read what they want to believe, and we do to. Sometimes, it can be hard to tell what is real and what is not across the board too. The one thing I like to focus on, is that we are ALL being lied to. They tend to focus a little bit more after that and realize I am just trying to establish a common ground. Not always easy, and sometimes, you wanna just say “fuck it, fuck you, fuck this…” because it’s online… but it’s nice having that one or two discussions with someone who might have a different opinion, but is open to debate facts and listen to opinions.

      • It’s not at all difficult to prove that advocates of racially invidious gun controls are liars.

        If you can’t prove in SECONDS that the following aren’t baldfaced lies, you either aren’t trying or don’t want to:

        * Civilian AR15s are “assault rifles” or “machine guns”.
        * Nobody can defend themself with a firearm.
        * Nobody hunts with a handgun or AR15.
        * You don’t need a gun because the police have a legal duty to protect you.

  15. Meh…because I can. 2nd Amendment. I would have taken the dumbazz ex-military gal’s gun while her back was turned😄 BTW my son is ex-army and has been everywhere in the mideast. And he’s a fudd. No special dispensation from me!

  16. Use the term “gun rights”, not “gun control”, when discussing this topic. Using the term “gun control” immediately puts us on the defensive. Take control of the conversation. If necessary, refer to “gun control” for what it is: “gun right infringement”. You cant win if all you do is play defense.

    • Agreed. This tactic can be used for many things. Like the word “but”:

      If you say: “I’d love to make it, but, I don’t have time. Rain check?” then the only thing that get’s focused on is that you don’t have time and it’s read negatively and implies that you are not interested.

      If you say: “I don’t have time today, but thank you for the offer and I’d love a raincheck” then it becomes a positive. You state that you don’t have time, but are grateful for the invitation and hope to do it some other time.

      It’s all about the word play.

    • “Gun Rights” is as stupid as “Gun Control” – guns don’t have rights, and gun control is 2 hands with a good stance.

      The 2nd Amendment, as with the 1st Amendment, is a natural (existing in nature, or God-Given, if you prefer) and a civil right (self defense of one’s self, property, etc). Therefore, if one is advocating for laws which abridge these rights, then they are racists and/or bigots for denying a Free person their Natural and Civil Rights.

      If a government (military, LE, …) needs these weapons for security purposes, does not the Citizen require the same for their security from tyranny and criminal activity?

      • The citizens requires equal or better arms than the standing army to ensure the ability to overthrow tyranny remains in the hands of the People.

      • We all agree on that (or most of us here). The point you are missing, is that in order to get that point you made through to some of these (or most) people, you have to kindergarten style story time it to them and provide them a book to color in afterwards with a possible nap time. Saying it the way you did, is a good way to make the point, but to them, it’s nothing more than a gun nut ranting. That is the intention of this entire article. Relate what you just said, in the simplest, most PC way possible. Your statement is like the college level course for them. We are talking about breaking it down kindergarten style.

        • It shouldn’t take a college level education to remind someone that self defense is a naturally occurring right. Would you deny a mama bear her ability to defend, with bear arms, her cubs? (See, add a bad bun, get them laughing, and you’re half way to a reasonable conversation). Also, do not for a second imply that they are stupid. Instead talk to them as an adult, and with respect.

          Also, never use “but”. Use “however” or similar, or nothing at all. The word “but”, generally, infers that everything you said previous was ignorable.

          I don’t have the time today, but…
          I’m pro 2nd Amendment, but…
          I’d like to continue this conversation, but….

        • “It shouldn’t take a college level education to remind someone that self defense is a naturally occurring right.”

          It shouldn’t but it does if they’ve gone through 12+ years of indoctrination which many, many people have.

        • I stated the word “but” in a different comment on here. It’s all about how you use it. but…. I agree 😉

    • I prefer “racially invidious gun controls”.

      Making White, Democrats defend Jim Crow is almost as much fun as a day at the range.

  17. You should never try to teach a pig to sing…It wastes your time and annoys the pig. The only way an Anti 2A proponent changes their opinion on Gun Rights. Generally results from surviving a Come to Jesus moment. When they realize the only person who can/will protect them. Is themselves. Keep Your Powder Dry.

    • Especially so when referring to the “I won’t budge on this subject” types. We all have our own “Won’t budge” topics, but when it comes to self defense, those people think a video on their phone is the same kind of protection that actual self defense is. They are scared, and sheltered. The only way they will budge is if they are scared for their life, and have their safety bubble popped.

  19. They will not be converted but we must insist they honor the Constitution because if they do not on this issue they not honor other parts, either, such as Kamala bellowing that she will ban items with executive orders The Dem accuse Trump of acting like a king but she would act like dictator.

  20. Engaging with gun control advocates? I would prefer to shave my eyeballs.

    “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

    ― Mark Twain

  21. So, this is where I find that subtle manipulative tactics work well.

    Don’t argue. Just keep asking “Why?” again and again and again like an annoying child/mildly stupid adult.

    This does two things: Uncovers who and who is not worth talking to and forces them to actually contemplate their position (provided that they’re relatively honest, which I find is about a 70/30 shot in favor of honest but uninformed).

    In truth, I find that even on the pro-2A side of things most people don’t actually have a philosophical basis for what the say. They like an argument or were convinced that it’s correct at some point and so they stick with it. That old “a liberal who’s been robbed” argument isn’t an argument that the person suddenly understands a different philosophy. It’s a statement that people change when they get emotionally kicked in the face and it shatters their world. Generally I tend to find this lack of foundational understanding is more common the Left but it can be uncovered pretty much anywhere and is more common than I’d like to really admit.

    Anyway, if you keep pounding away at “Why?” to peal back the onion you force people who generally haven’t thought very deeply about something to actually do so. This has an interesting effect because people generally feel that they’re smart and educated and shit but now the water’s getting deep and they’re finding out that they actually can’t explain their position logically, rationally or philosophically at all, let alone put it in historical context. Those educational water-wings are seeming a bit less comforting and they’re getting anxious. Good. That’s the point.

    This becoming obvious in public, or even in a private conversation, makes most people really rather uncomfortable and now we get to find out what sort of person they are.

    “Soft” antis will start things. “Hard” antis will start screaming/insulting. Now you know which targets are viable and which are not and you’ve already started to crack open the emotional door on the “soft” antis because they don’t like feeling dumb in public and want this feeling to go away and not come back.

    And this is where some deft maneuvering ends with you taking them to the range, them shooting a gun and leaving the range with a big stupid smile on their face, primed and ready for you to start shoving some facts into the space between their ears.

    Works a hell of a lot more than you’d think. Flies, vinegar and all that.

  22. What the anti-gun crowd never understands, it won’t just be the “Jack Booted Thugs” on the two way range, the politicians, anti-gun zealots, and leftists who supported the legislation will have targets center of mass on them as well. Once bullets start flying, the cold war we are currently waging will go hot like a match to gasoline.

  23. “… she was purse carrying, and that she walked away from her purse for an extended period of time…”

    Were it my property I’d chew her out and send her home. Have done similar to a visitor not minding his firearm.

    Good to challenge her though, throw some tough questions. Even if she’s never going to change it can’t hurt to show her she’s in over her head.

    • The mistake she made: was allowing someone to find out she was carrying at all. It’s one thing to step away from a backpack or something you are carrying in, but why and how should anyone know there is a gun in it? That’s where she fucked up. I’ve had my gun in my backpack when I was at school, and just because I get up from my “desk” where it sits, doesn’t mean I am being negligent. It would draw more attention to me carrying it around everywhere at that point. I mean, you get what I am saying, right? So my question is why were the contents of ones purse ever disclosed, especially something like a gun? The author did mention “an extended period of time” which can be okay, if you have eyes on and no one knows the contents. Still, I agree, that it’s better to carry on body for that reason, obviously, but a lot of old school women off body carry in their purse like the one the author mentioned. A smart one would not, but also obviously, she was not smart. The only time I off body carried is when I had my full size before I got something smaller to conceal. I also do it at work, and nobody knows anything. All they know is I carry a change of clothes for after work errands and the gym, and it’s too big to fit in a locker upstairs in our “break room”, so it’s secure enough where I keep it. Sometimes, you gotta do what you gotta do. But the whole purse story does raise some “red flags” for me too.

      • ^^ THIS ^^

        Two mistakes:
        1) She shouldn’t have left her purse unattended
        2) She should never have allowed anyone to know she had a gun in the purse. That’s the whole purpose of concealed carry. If you mouth off and let people know, you’ve defeated the purpose and may as well be carrying it in an open holster.

        I sure don’t tell anyone what I’m carrying, or when.

  24. I would have banged her and had her make purchases for me. So much for her and her so called beliefs.

  26. When my wife first got her ccl she purse carried. I tried to instill the responsibility a firearm requires. Well not long after while at a bbq at a friends I noticed from across the yard she left the purse alone, now although no one was near it there were many in the area.
    I went over picked it out and secured it in the truck. She didn’t realize until we were home hours later, let her sweat it until the morning. She now knows where it is at all times.

  27. Engaging with gun control advocates…

    Yr playing to the audience; they’re playing to the cheap seats. Act accordingly.

  28. I just refer to docket 18-280 in the supreme court. When they don’t know what that represents or what “strict scrutiny” represent I calmly explain. They then start yelling about Trump and judges and convo ends with a tear in their eye.
    Don’t engage with these people. Wait until the decision comes down, which it will, in favor of strict scrutiny for the 2nd. All these infringements, although it will take time for each state to come into line, will be dealt with, there will be no choice. Heller and Mcdonlad were small fry and are constantly ignored due to the fact that “strict scrutiny” does not have to be applied. That will change and that change is HUGE.

    If you don’t know what this is. Educate yourself. Read all the pdfs attached to the docket on the supreme court website. Look at how they were written and how the court STILL accepted the case. The writing is on the wall and a big WIN is coming.

  29. I’m convinced that just an imagined threat of there being a gun in the house prevents a significant number of attempted home break ins. But that imagined threat has to be backed up by the real possibility that there is an actual gun in the house. Ban guns or make them unobtainable to most people and there is no more viable threat to dissuade those that would violate the sanctity of ones dwelling with an intent to do harm.

    Case in point, when I was nine years old and living in Southern California, someone attempted to break into our house in the AM hours while everyone was sleeping. My parents were roused out of sleep by a noise that the intruder was making and my father went to the living room were he could see that someone was trying to pry the door open and upon realizing this yelled out for my mom to “get the gun”, with the result that the intruder stopped trying to force the door open and apparently fled the scene entirely, at least the cops never found him when they arrived about 20 to 30 minutes after the fact and searched the premises.

    Would the intruder have reacted the same and fled had he known that legal civilian gun ownership was largely illegal and that there was likely no actual gun in the house? Perhaps? But perhaps not? And had he not taken the threat of the gun seriously and fled then it is quite possible that the consequences could have been dire for both myself and my family. So I do attribute legal and widespread gun ownership with protecting myself and my loved ones from a violent encounter that without the real threat of a gun being present could have ended in great harm or even death for me and my family.

    At the time my mom and pop did have a few real guns in the house too. From what i remember, a Ruger Mark IV 22 LR, a 22 LR bolt action rifle, and a 20 Gauge shotgun that my mom purchased along with a German Short Haired Pointer to hunt quail with.

    • Are you sure it wasn’t an earlier model Ruger pistol? The Mark IV came out in 2016. (Unless you’re still 11 or under.)

  30. I would have asked this former Marine if it’s ok to leave her weapon unsecured and out of her reach? Since she walked away from it several times during the evening. I would ask her did she do that while in a combat zone?

    Did she hold lower ranking personal accountable when they left their weapon unsecured?

    I would ask her how Kate steinle or shaneen Allen or Carol Browne, where “helped” by gun control laws?

    And if she didn’t know who these women are or were and I would give her a short history lesson and restate my question.

  31. off-body carry should be the first red flag when discussing anything with this person.

  32. It was most interesting, given her background, that she was purse carrying, and that she walked away from her purse for an extended period of time. I noted the above as she expressed her position in favor of stricter gun laws. She believes that most people — herself excluded, of course — would not be competent or fit to carry a firearm.

    All she is doing is demonstrating her ignorance. Like most supporters of “moderate” gun control she is utterly ignorant. The issue with carry and the target of the gun control advocates, most certainly in Oregon, is shall issue.

    Her proclaimed “competence” is irrelevant. Her “need” to have a gun is the issue. And her having been on the security detail of a president (and that sounds like bullshit since marine details for presidents are not armed) does not constitute a need whatsoever in any “may issue” regime.

    • Planting seeds when the adversary pumps anti gun, anti individual freedom messages 24/7, 365 days a years through mass media, pop culture because they own both is laughable.

  34. “Robert Kramer says:
    July 31, 2019 at 07:29
    When my wife first got her ccl she purse carried.”

    I can’t imagine what her thoughts might have been the rest of the day,. I’ll bet she tossed and turned all night trying to sleep that evening, wondering who has her purse and HER FIREARM. Holy smokes, if that isn’t a lesson learned.
    I gotta remember that event. Thanks for sharing Robert. WHEW!!!

Comments are closed.