Prof Young
New member
I've had a long FB "conversation" with one of my former students who is vigorously against guns.
He stereotypes hunter as people who just want to "rip animals to shreds" and he is sure that the "only conclusion" one can make of someone who owns a lot of guns is that they must be up to something "dangerous." So it's been an interesting look into the mind of someone who hates and clearly fears guns without really knowing much about them.
I've tried to keep the discourse civil and clearly pointed out the areas where we have agreement. I've had to explain the difference between semi and full auto. I pointed out that he'd bought into the Hollywood stereotype about hunters being a bunch of rednecks ready to blast away at anything that moved etc. And the revelation that Jerry Lewis owned a small arsenal was a good response to his "only conclusion" about people who owned a lot of guns.
Unfortunately the end result seems to be that he has bailed from the debate.
It seems to me that we fight for the second amendment on two fronts. The major "battle" lines are in the legislature and the courts and in the election campaigns. We fight the legal battle to maintain our right to bear arms in all the variations that we should have for that right.
But the second front while much more quiet and subtle is nonetheless as important. Our person to person interactions with those who are anti-gun must be as civil yet proactive as we can make it. If someone stops listening or engaging in the debate make it be on them. We must keep our person to person discourse civil and polite and logical and if the anti-gun person bails on the debate. It's on them. And when they are ready to talk again . . . so are we.
Life is good.
Prof Young
He stereotypes hunter as people who just want to "rip animals to shreds" and he is sure that the "only conclusion" one can make of someone who owns a lot of guns is that they must be up to something "dangerous." So it's been an interesting look into the mind of someone who hates and clearly fears guns without really knowing much about them.
I've tried to keep the discourse civil and clearly pointed out the areas where we have agreement. I've had to explain the difference between semi and full auto. I pointed out that he'd bought into the Hollywood stereotype about hunters being a bunch of rednecks ready to blast away at anything that moved etc. And the revelation that Jerry Lewis owned a small arsenal was a good response to his "only conclusion" about people who owned a lot of guns.
Unfortunately the end result seems to be that he has bailed from the debate.
It seems to me that we fight for the second amendment on two fronts. The major "battle" lines are in the legislature and the courts and in the election campaigns. We fight the legal battle to maintain our right to bear arms in all the variations that we should have for that right.
But the second front while much more quiet and subtle is nonetheless as important. Our person to person interactions with those who are anti-gun must be as civil yet proactive as we can make it. If someone stops listening or engaging in the debate make it be on them. We must keep our person to person discourse civil and polite and logical and if the anti-gun person bails on the debate. It's on them. And when they are ready to talk again . . . so are we.
Life is good.
Prof Young