Little brother came to visit

[Guest FIST]

So as we are both firearm enthusiasts the conversations where mostly related to such. We talked about a little bit of politics and I hopefully got to him to care enough to at least research some issues (He never heard of the Aurora shooting)

The talk that really stood out though was when I asked him the following,

"Should a citizen be allowed to own a fully auto AK-47 with a 100rd clip, that shoots all the bullets at once?". This is the question or a very similar version I get from the majority of let's say, non firearms enthusiasts.

I was curious as to what his response would be, he says "I'd tell them it's my right then walk away."

I responded with many of the anti's arguments and told him a few facts about firearms compared to other killers (cars), talked about the high murder rate in Chicago, et, etc.

My overall point to him was that regardless of the "stupid redneck" response from anti's and some of their unfounded views, we as firearm owners should be able to respond to them with solid factuall evidence (gun crime per capita as opposed to overall population, firearms used in self defense, understanding the NFA, tax stamps, class 3 etc), comparisons of things that are more dangerous (cars kill more people, full auto's have no purpose so I ask the purpose of a corvette, etc), and not responding emotionally to them.

There where a few other things, overall I suppose I was just trying to arm him to be able to stand his ground even though most anti's wouldn't care if their personal savior came from the heavens above and told them they were wrong.

I was surprised by his lack of general knowledge, honestly I surprise myself with my lack daily though.

On a side note, when I explained to my boss (very liberal but not anti gun) the fualt in saying a full auto shouldn't be owned by a private citizen with the "What reasonable purpose for owning a corvette" argument he says to me, "Well maybe we should ban those too.". I don't think he was ready for the comparison as the best defense to it was that cars don't kill people, funny you say that boss!

Any arguments, points, counter points etc that anybody else has heard?

Edited August 12, 2012 by FIST

[Murgatroy]

Why?

They will never be able to convince me with their figures, stats or logic.

I will never be able to convince them with my figures, stats or logic.

I prefer to walk away than waste my breath.

For the record though, good luck finding a full auto AK pattern rifle, not very many were ever brought into this country legally before 1986.

[Guest FIST]

For the record though, good luck finding a full auto AK pattern rifle, not very many were ever brought into this country legally before 1986.

They don't know that, didn't you know I can buy one with no background check at a gun show? When I explained the NFA and the restrictions, registration, and cost of owning a full auto anything it was like I saw a light bulb click on behind his eyes. His final attempt was to say a criminal could do it, I asked what criminal would go trough all that trouble? He said ok.

I didn't change his view with that one discussion but I did arm him with the truth. The next time him and his anti pals talk about it he just might tell them the truth and who knows? It could spread through them like a freedom and truth virus "28 days later"

[Murgatroy]

Truth =/= Emotion.

[DaveTN]

Prepare him to be able to stand his ground for what? An argument that a Corvette is more dangerous than a gun? You mention Chicago and talk about “Facts†are you going to make the argument that cities with stricter gun control have higher crime rates?

Citizens can own fully automatic weapons now.

If I’m making an argument for me to be able to keep the weapons I have for home defense, I don’t want to tie that to a discussion on fully automatic weapons.

Any arguments, points, counter points etc that anybody else has heard?

Which side would you like me to take?

I don’t make comparisons or argue statistics. I simply tell them “The only way to stop an active shooter is with another active shooter.â€

[Guest bkelm18]

It's not my job to educate fools. No amount of facts or research is going to convince a hardcore gun grabber. It's best just to not engage in their attempt at debating the issue.

[Guest FIST]

Prepare him to be able to stand his ground for what? An argument that a Corvette is more dangerous than a gun? You mention Chicago and talk about “Facts†are you going to make the argument that cities with stricter gun control have higher crime rates?

Citizens can own fully automatic weapons now.

If I’m making an argument for me to be able to keep the weapons I have for home defense, I don’t want to tie that to a discussion on fully automatic weapons.

Which side would you like me to take?

I don’t make comparisons or argue statistics. I simply tell them “The only way to stop an active shooter is with another active shooter.â€

Thats a very good point on sticking with home defense over an auto.

I recently took the family to Disney and we drove. My brother in law happens to be from Massachusetts and he and his wife are extremely anti gun. He had a traumatic experience with gun violence as a child, I'm not sure of his wife's issue. Needles to say they took exception to me carrying as soon as they cuaght wind of it. I explained to him that I would be doing so lawfully, had researched the state laws for those I would travel through and ensured them of the safety of said handguns while at the resort (stayed with all the wife's family in a time share).

His reply was that I dont need to go to war with Mickey Mouse. There was no concern on his end for my right to defend my family during travel (not unusual for most hardcore anti folks obviously). After I explained it was not legal to carry inside Disney and this could be used as a opportunity to teach his children about firearm safety (remove the awe of a weapon, safety, etc). I never heard about it again after that. Did I change their minds, no. Did they possibly come to even a sliver of understanding that guns don't get up in the middle of the night and kill people? Yes.

My argument with the car is this, (practicallity nothing more or less)

A Corvette has only 2 seats and therefore is not practical for transporting more than 1 additional passenger (it's irrelevant as to the need to transport more, this is an argument in practicality and not in personal want nor desire of the individual. As stated by anti's, what "practical" use is the AK).Gas mileage sucks. Expensive. Capable of excessive speeds that can not be lawfully reached with the exception of a controlled environment (a race track is similar to a gun range by allowing safe use of what could otherwise be a dangerous tool). Therefore, what practical use is a Corvette? Well, none to me as I don't have one. If they attempted to "ban" sports cars it's of no concern to most since they have no interest in one. It is however a concern to me because it has to do with the freedom in a free market to have excess if you so choose. Cars are safer? Holmes couldn't have killed 12 with a car? I wonder how long those lines where to get in that theater? Killed 12, probably not, I would imagine more if that had been his planned weapon (he seemed very methodical in his planning).

The normal response I recieve on the cars argument from quick witted anti's is the need for a license and insurance to own a car. I tell them that's a good policy, since even criminals can legally own a car and last I checked your mode of transportation wasn't a guaranteed right.

Then comes the "Founding fathers didn't envision EBR's when the bill of rights was written" case. Funny thing is, I don't believe they envisioned TV, phones, or the Internet.

I know that most arguments with anti's are a futile exercise. If you as a gun owner can give the facts, truths, and solid educated responses to an argument, you win.

Why you ask? Because by removing the ignorance involved in the debate regardless of the opposition admitting defeat, you can steer some of them, no matter how few to see it as a personal rights issue. The same reason that some gays supported Dan Cathy's right to free speech could be the same reason you get an anti (middle of the road type) to support the 2nd Ammendment.

Ask a buddy that is pro gun sometime this week how he/she feels about the AK question. Get his/her response. The more educated we are as firearm owners the more power we have. Maybe you would stop hearing an AR 15 referred to as an "Assualt Weapon". And if you don't know the defenition of one, google. Capable of selective fire might stand out to you. That's where that class 3 NFA knowledge can open the eyes of your opponent.

If at first you fail, try, try again.

Edited August 12, 2012 by FIST

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The problem with the car analogy is that some of the most ardent gun-banners would agree with the sham proposal. They would ban corvettes in a heartbeat. Corvettes will kill us all with global warming. People shouldn't own cars and ought to bicycle or ride the bus. If a person is so bourgeoise that he MUST own a car, then it ought to be a green prius, not a gas-hog polluting corvette. Why do you need any car other than a prius? Why do you need any gun other than a single-shot muzzleloader? Why do you need anything to eat other than brown rice and veggies?

The most dangerous lefties are just as puritannical as the most right-wing puritans. In fact, they agree on many things that should be banned, and could probably negotiate out the minor disagreements. If all the lefty and righty puritans ever organize together it will be bad news.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[DaveTN]

So if I took some of these people to the range with me and I cut loose with 20 rounds of .308 from my DPMS Panther, you think that they would recognize that it is not full auto, or that the devastation they just witnessed doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s definition of an “assault rifle�

I’ve owned Corvettes and Motorcycles most of my life. You make a good point when you say that you don’t care if they ban Corvettes because you have no interest in them; anti’s say them same about guns. I have no interest in full auto weapons or suppressors; doesn’t mean I want to see them banned. 70 people were put down in Aurora in a couple of minutes and no full auto weapons were used.

I have the right to protect my family and my property. Gang bangers have high capacity weapons. So do I, and I don’t try to sugar coat it or make them sound like they aren’t “assault riflesâ€; they are.

As we have seen over the years, and will continue to see, there is no way to stop a crazed gunman. A gun ban won’t do it. The only way to stop a shooter is with another shooter. In Aurora the gunman fired until he was out of ammo, 70 people down. In Milwaukee the shooter was engaged by active shooters that killed him; who knows what the body count would have been otherwise.

[Guest FIST]

Dupelicate post.

Edited August 12, 2012 by FIST

[Guest FIST]

So if I took some of these people to the range with me and I cut loose with 20 rounds of .308 from my DPMS Panther, you think that they would recognize that it is not full auto, or that the devastation they just witnessed doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s definition of an “assault rifle�

I’ve owned Corvettes and Motorcycles most of my life. You make a good point when you say that you don’t care if they ban Corvettes because you have no interest in them; anti’s say them same about guns. I have no interest in full auto weapons or suppressors; doesn’t mean I want to see them banned. 70 people were put down in Aurora in a couple of minutes and no full auto weapons were used.

I have the right to protect my family and my property. Gang bangers have high capacity weapons. So do I, and I don’t try to sugar coat it or make them sound like they aren’t “assault riflesâ€; they are.

As we have seen over the years, and will continue to see, there is no way to stop a crazed gunman. A gun ban won’t do it. The only way to stop a shooter is with another shooter. In Aurora the gunman fired until he was out of ammo, 70 people down. In Milwaukee the shooter was engaged by active shooters that killed him; who knows what the body count would have been otherwise.

If you have one(anti) at the range you can educate him/her on the differences. If, can get one there.

I did state I don't care about owning a Corvette. The sentence that followed stated why I would support the right to own one. (for the record I would love one if I could budget it)

I have heard the argument for having an HCP holder in the theater could/would have ended the shooting with less death. While I agree 100% with you on that point, how would you structure an argument towards the opposing view? (Dark, smokey, panic, more killed, etc. we have heard most of it)

Would you inform them he was in fact not wearing body armor? That even if the rounds only suppressed Holmes he most likely would have fled? That Holmes was actually referred to the campus police by his psychologist 3 weeks prior because of fear he would harm himself or others, the warning signs were there.

If you can not bring anything to the discussion that will make an anti etc at least take the time to verify there own information then there is no point in speaking with them. Points or counterpoints that provide no substance or are so vague as to seem "un real, false, rhetoric" will never get anyone to at a minimum re evaluate their belief, or even push them to attempt to research it.

I guess I should be clearer in what I proposed with my question that started the post.

When I state "anti" I am more so referring to a individual that does not exercise their 2nd amendment right. Someone that does not live a sportsman lifestyle, was not brought up with nor ever had the love or commitment towards shooting like we do. Some maybe because of an incident, some because of lack of exposure to it.

I fully understand that the hardcore gun grabbers could give 2 ####s what we say or do, facts we present, or introducing the right to keep and bear arms as a god given right. I get this.

What I'm trying to get out of this is, what are "you" saying to these per se "middle of the road" types.

I.E. My older brother was raised around firearms the same as me. He never developed a love for the sport. With that being said, he does not value it the way I do, not in an anti way but more of a "What could a few more laws harm?" way. While he would not actively push an anti gun agenda, he would non the less not fight for a right he places no value on. By building a sound, intellingent, and factuall argument with him and presenting it as a "right" that is guaranteed just like free speech, he can then view it as a"right" and not just a fight he has no bone in.

I apologize if my original post may have come across as arguing with hard core progressives as that wasn't my original intent. Just trying to get some of your personal experiences in this matter to better educate myself for the next time it happens.

[Glenn]

I have heard several times lately "No one should be allowed to own an AR-15 with a 100 round drum" I just say why not? I am not a criminal and don't use my guns to commit crimes, so give me 1 good reason I shouldn't own an AR-15 with a 100 round drum or any other gun I want? They just look at you. Of course it's a moot point since the boating accident.

Glenn

[Guest FIST]

Never much luck with boats now days. Sad to say I to have been involved in a tragic boating accident.

[DaveTN]

If you can not bring anything to the discussion that will make an anti etc at least take the time to verify there own information then there is no point in speaking with them. Points or counterpoints that provide no substance or are so vague as to seem "un real, false, rhetoric" will never get anyone to at a minimum re evaluate their belief, or even push them to attempt to research it.

That’s what brought my attention to your post. Your “Chicago†and Corvette†comments were thrown out there like facts. Are you implying that cities that have tight gun control have higher crime or murder rates than those that don’t? Not an argument I would want to use; you will get shut down in one word around here.

The cars…. boats… motorcycle… knives… 2X4’s; comparisons just can’t be taken seriously.

What I'm trying to get out of this is, what are "you" saying to these per se "middle of the road" types.

That you can’t outlaw guns and expect criminals not to have them anymore than you can drugs, or alcohol, or tobacco products. The only thing that you can hope for if someone is going to shoot you or a family member is that there is a gun in the hand of a good guy nearby that knows how to use it. Big, heavy caliber guns that will stop the threat before the bad guy can get a round off.

I apologize if my original post may have come across as arguing with hard core progressives as that wasn't my original intent. Just trying to get some of your personal experiences in this matter to better educate myself for the next time it happens.

No need to apologize, but don’t think that everyone that thinks 100 round rifle caliber magazines serve no purpose is a gun grabber.

There is no “Rights†argument anymore; it’s over. You have a right to own guns. The State has the right to regulate when and where you will carry them. I don’t want to see AR’s banned, but I’m not about to make the argument it’s not an “Assault Rifleâ€; certainly it is.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Hi FIST

Maybe I'll think up convincing arguments but its awfully difficult. Perhaps with some folk capable of logic, getting them to read something like the book "More guns less crime", or read the book yerself and quote statistics in your discussions?

Perhaps the most sure-fire way to convert a middle-of-the-road anti-gun person-- The person should have a "near miss" of personal violence, or maybe have a potentially violent neighbor, work or live in a slightly hazardous neighborhood. Enough to scare him into getting a pistol even though he does not yet believe that having a pistol is "right". Even if the person has been anti-gun for decades-- After the guy has his own gun he won't want any politician taking it away from him. Basic human orneryness takes over and does the convincing for you. After that initial change in orientation, it doesn't matter what reasons in your argument. The fella will seek out or invent any reason he finds personally satisfying in order to rationalize keeping his own property and opposing anti-gun meddlers.

Even real bright people are beastly difficult to convert via debate. It is possible sometimes but seems vanishingly rare. Often it is impossible to reason even with people who 90 percent agree with you. Had a long internet discussion with a patriotic fella who was career military, served in several wars, retired to work in the military-industrial complex. A "moderate republican" or whatever. He believed that civilians can have self-defense pistols and hunting rifles but only military should have auto weapons or hi-cap magazines. The guy had forgotten more about weapon systems and war than I will ever learn. Not exactly a situation of me educating him. Regardless the argument technique, he maintained the unshakeable belief that ordinary citizens have no business owning hi-cap mags, auto weapons, military style weapons or unusually powerful guns such as 50 cal rifles. Bubba just doesn't need a 30 rd mag and that's that.

If it is so difficult to convince an "ally" then the prospects of convincing an "opponent" are seriously discouraging.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Guest FIST]

That’s what brought my attention to your post. Your “Chicago†and Corvette†comments were thrown out there like facts. Are you implying that cities that have tight gun control have higher crime or murder rates than those that don’t? Not an argument I would want to use; you will get shut down in one word around here.

The cars…. boats… motorcycle… knives… 2X4’s; comparisons just can’t be taken seriously.

That you can’t outlaw guns and expect criminals not to have them anymore than you can drugs, or alcohol, or tobacco products. The only thing that you can hope for if someone is going to shoot you or a family member is that there is a gun in the hand of a good guy nearby that knows how to use it. Big, heavy caliber guns that will stop the threat before the bad guy can get a round off.

No need to apologize, but don’t think that everyone that thinks 100 round rifle caliber magazines serve no purpose is a gun grabber.

There is no “Rights†argument anymore; it’s over. You have a right to own guns. The State has the right to regulate when and where you will carry them. I don’t want to see AR’s banned, but I’m not about to make the argument it’s not an “Assault Rifleâ€; certainly it is.

So it is not fact that more Americans were killed in "Chicago" this year than Afghanistan? The firearm restrictions do not play a part in that?

Corvette was used in an argument that is based strictly on the statement that an "AK-47" has no practical use. The vehicle can easily be interchanged to an F-350, what’s the use for a truck that size if it’s not used specifically for a business requiring a truck of its capability? Does it really matter what automobile? We can use gaming computers as well. An argument can be made on a variety of items. Isn't the point of the exercise to point out that just because one individual has no practical use for something it does not mean that others cannot?

How does the statement "that a gun in the hand of a good guy nearby that knows how to use it" going to sway a person's point of view to the point they will re-evaluate it? Am I to take your words as truth? What constitutes the "good guy", how does he "know how to use it". There is nothing factual in the argument, it's too vague.

There is no “Rights†argument anymore? So is there no need to ever again worry about an attempt to restrict our rights? An AR 15 does not constitute an “assault rifle†any more than it can be classified as a “machine gunâ€. You’re speaking in generalities, by doing so it shows a general lack of knowledge on a particular subject. How can you reasonably expect to present an argument if you don’t know any more about it than your opposition?

I have noticed that you are adding and taking away from what I have posted in your responses to me. If you have questions please ask before making an assumption.

[Guest FIST]

Hi FIST

Maybe I'll think up convincing arguments but its awfully difficult. Perhaps with some folk capable of logic, getting them to read something like the book "More guns less crime", or read the book yerself and quote statistics in your discussions?

Perhaps the most sure-fire way to convert a middle-of-the-road anti-gun person-- The person should have a "near miss" of personal violence, or maybe have a potentially violent neighbor, work or live in a slightly hazardous neighborhood. Enough to scare him into getting a pistol even though he does not yet believe that having a pistol is "right". Even if the person has been anti-gun for decades-- After the guy has his own gun he won't want any politician taking it away from him. Basic human orneryness takes over and does the convincing for you. After that initial change in orientation, it doesn't matter what reasons in your argument. The fella will seek out or invent any reason he finds personally satisfying in order to rationalize keeping his own property and opposing anti-gun meddlers.

Even real bright people are beastly difficult to convert via debate. It is possible sometimes but seems vanishingly rare. Often it is impossible to reason even with people who 90 percent agree with you. Had a long internet discussion with a patriotic fella who was career military, served in several wars, retired to work in the military-industrial complex. A "moderate republican" or whatever. He believed that civilians can have self-defense pistols and hunting rifles but only military should have auto weapons or hi-cap magazines. The guy had forgotten more about weapon systems and war than I will ever learn. Not exactly a situation of me educating him. Regardless the argument technique, he maintained the unshakeable belief that ordinary citizens have no business owning hi-cap mags, auto weapons, military style weapons or unusually powerful guns such as 50 cal rifles. Bubba just doesn't need a 30 rd mag and that's that.

If it is so difficult to convince an "ally" then the prospects of convincing an "opponent" are seriously discouraging.

The idea of getting a "middle of the road" guy to go shooting is a good one. Even though those aren't your exact word that’s what I took away from it, not trying to put words in your mouth.

Convincing an "Ally" can be difficult. The problem as I viewed it after the conversation with my younger brother (pro gun as well) was that he had no reasonable rebuttal to any anti-gun discussion. Not that I have all the information by any means.

I just like to be armed with as much knowledge as possible. If I have facts, and can present them in a clear and concise manner then I tend not to hit the "emotional" phase in a discussion.

Most of the folks here have been on this earth a considerable amount of time longer than me, experience counts. I value the advice and appreciate it. I also enjoy a good argument/discussion. In my personal experience, if you can relate something that your opposition views as valuable to what you view as valuable, it can work to take the emotion out of an argument and replace it with facts. At the very least you could expect a reasonable attempt from your opponent and avoid the “talk louder and mock†method so often in use.

Edited August 13, 2012 by FIST

[Guest FIST]

Lester, I will check out the book for sure, thank you.

[DaveTN]

You’re speaking in generalities, by doing so it shows a general lack of knowledge on a particular subject. How can you reasonably expect to present an argument if you don’t know any more about it than your opposition?

Okay, I’ll just stay out of this and watch and learn.

[TMF]

I often get baited by my wife's liberal family when I'm up there visiting. I've learned to avoid it at all costs. I won't change their opinion with logic and they won't change my opinion with emotion. I realized it is a battle I don't want to fight when I found out that my wife's Aunt cried before we got married because she found out I have guns. You can't argue with that with logic. It just can't be done.

[Guest FIST]

Okay, I’ll just stay out of this and watch and learn.

Dave, I'm not trying to be a douche. I appreciate your input, It gives me a chance to step outside of my comfort zone.

Honestly, when I read your post prior to this one and was working on my response I found myself starting to respond emotionally to it. I had to stop and review what I was doing. I'm not sure if your intent was to ellicit an emotional response and if I had responded in person I would have made that mistake.

The fact we are both Pro Gun and can differ strongly on the small things is a testament to our overall love for the 2nd amendment. I feel very strongly (part Army, part OCD) about applying exact terms and definitions to small stuff. That doesn't make me any more right than you are. The questions I posed in response to your posts are questions I really would value your answer on. I'm just trying to learn.

Maybe I'm naive with some of my points or counter points and that's where you old timers can help me out. . I may be young (my body is old, thanks Army) but I'm just as stubborn as most of the folks here.

[Guest FIST]

I often get baited by my wife's liberal family when I'm up there visiting. I've learned to avoid it at all costs. I won't change their opinion with logic and they won't change my opinion with emotion. I realized it is a battle I don't want to fight when I found out that my wife's Aunt cried before we got married because she found out I have guns. You can't argue with that with logic. It just can't be done.

I'm still learning this.

Recently my mother in law (not anti but far from pro gun) asked me "What is the purpose of a gun?"

Her answer was obviously to "kill". I argued otherwise. Afterwards I did a good bit of research just trying to convince myself that my argument was valid.

The truth is, she was right. Where I failed was my attempt to add the evolution of the firearm into the definition of "purpose". While we were both correct in our arguments, we each had different definitions of the word "purpose". This essentially made it impossible for either of us to agree on the others conclusion.

I don't believe I will ever change her into a pro gunner, but over the last 11 years I have worn on her and she is much more receptive to the "concept" of firearms ownership. My wife even argues my side when they bring it up!

On my side (just Dad and two brothers) only my Dad and younger brother are pro, older bro is un biased either way.

[RobertNashville]

About a week or so ago, a very liberal Democrat friend who is decorated Vietnam veteran had posted a like to an "Assault Weapons Ban" petition on his Facebook page. I generally don't comment on such things on his page but as a couple of people with different views from each other had already made several comments I added some of my own and we actually had a reasonable conversation about firearms in general but not so much the AWB petition. At this point, my friend commented and wanted to turn the conversation back to strictly "Assault Weapons".

As a combat wounded vet, I knew my friend knew what a true "assault weapon" was but try as I might, I could not get him to admit that the AWB was only about cosmetic appearance, not the function of the weapon. He finally asked my opinion about whether the 2A truly allows civilians to own such weapons.

I speny over an hour crafting a detailed answer giving the history of the 2A with quotes from from the founders, supreme court justices, the Federalist's Papers, etc. and posted it.

My friend's response was to delete the entire thread from his FB page and "unfriend" me.

The message about not casting your pearls before swine came to mind.

My friend is a good guy...he truly is...he's literally bled for this country...he's still my friend in real life; however, I have to conclude that attempting to have a legitimate, honest, and meaningful conversation with someone about the 2A is pretty wasteful use of you time because those who are truly against firearms are almost never interested in facts, or history or common sense.

You'll never beat an emotional position with facts and logic.

Edited August 13, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest FIST]

About a week or so ago, a very liberal Democrat friend who is decorated Vietnam veteran had posted a like to an "Assault Weapons Ban" petition on his Facebook page. I generally don't comment on such things on his page but as a couple of people with different views from each other had already made several comments I added some of my own and we actually had a reasonable conversation about firearms in general but not so much the AWB petition. At this point, my friend commented and wanted to turn the conversation back to strictly "Assault Weapons".

As a combat wounded vet, I knew my friend knew what a true "assault weapon" was but try as I might, I could not get him to admit that the AWB was only about cosmetic appearance, not the function of the weapon. He finally asked my opinion about whether the 2A truly allows civilians to own such weapons.

I spend over an hour crafting a detailed answer giving the history of the 2A with quotes from from the founders, supreme court justices, the Federalist's Papers, etc. and posted it.

My friend's response was to delete the entire thread from his FB page and "unfriend" me.

The message about not casting your pearls before swine came to mind.

My friend is a good guy...he truly is...he's literally bled for this country...he's still my friend in real life; however, I have to conclude that attempting to have a legitimate, honest, and meaningful conversation with someone about the 2A is pretty wasteful use of you time because those who are truly against firearms are almost never interested in facts, or history or common sense.

You'll never beat an emotional position with facts and logic.

Do you believe it's possible that after reading your reply that he may have seen some truth and the resulting emotion was anger followed by the unfriending?

It's never easy to tell someone that they have cracked or shaken your belief system. Just as an example, our discussions concerning the vote for a third party. In all honesty, your responses to my posts in that/those threads has led me to do more research. I haven't set it in stone that my vote is for Romney, I'm just saying you opened the door for the reconsideration.

[RobertNashville]

Do you believe it's possible that after reading your reply that he may have seen some truth and the resulting emotion was anger followed by the unfriending?

It's never easy to tell someone that they have cracked or shaken your belief system. Just as an example, our discussions concerning the vote for a third party. In all honesty, your responses to my posts in that/those threads has led me to do more research. I haven't set it in stone that my vote is for Romney, I'm just saying you opened the door for the reconsideration.

Anger may well be a part of it even though I rewrote my response several times in an effort to not be overly confrontational or insulting.

I may never know precisely why he did it...I emailed him later without receiving a response...time will tell.