Thank you for the replies to “The Argument”. The person I was speaking with was listening. He wasn’t anti-gun, nor was he regurgitating anti-gun talking points.

This is different from some of the people who stuck their oar in. The people who said things like, “We need to ban assault weapons, those large bullets are too dangerous.” or something like that. Another was, “There is no reason for large capacity magazines.” Those people aren’t listening nor are they open to learning. They might be, but that is a different discussion.

I don’t do the car ban thing. The response argument is always, “But we NEED cars. You don’t need a gun.”

My wife loves me dearly. She reads my articles. Her eyes glaze over when I quote too much from a case document. Trying to explain to somebody without the papers in hand how the Second, Seventh, and Ninth twist words is futile, in my opinion.

My “Why are you advocating for breaking the law?” is my attempt to address this.

The “slippery slope” argument is difficult to make. In my opinion, the better way of addressing it is to ask, “What is your exit plan if your proposal doesn’t work as you think it will?”

I have had luck in changing people’s feelings. I handed a NYC boy a magazine with more than the allowed number of bullets. He took it, I grabbed it back. “You can’t have that! Your state says that having that will turn you into a mass murder.” I took one round out, handed it back. “Ok, now we are safe.”

The absurdity of that was enough for him to open his mind and actually think.

Sometimes facts are not about accepting or disregarding, sometimes it is about interpretation. The problem with that is exactly the same as with “We’ve never tried real Communism with me in charge. If I’m in charge, it will be a utopia on earth.”

We have had an excellent opinion out of the Third Circuit court. You can go listen to Mark Smith talk about it, or I’ll give you a write-up tomorrow.

I’m eagerly awaiting this week’s comments. Please comment.