Comment: You're not going to get through to her. Not this way at least.

(See in situ)


You're not going to get through to her. Not this way at least.

Well thought out? Is her name Dianne? Because "her thoughts" just so happens to exactly mirror the Feinstein bill and the rhetoric from DC.

Her regurgitation tells me everything I need to know about her...

She's not using her own brain to rationalize an opinion of her own volition. Thus anything you say will be met with the preconditioned response, like source code in a computer program. And worse is she's anticipating those responses in what you're about to tell her. In short, she's not open to REALLY listening.

It's very hard for people like her to understand where people like us in the liberty movement are coming from, because they don't prescribe to a any one philosophical viewpoint to guide them in their every decision. Instead, most of their thoughts are driven on pure emotion. As a result their so-called rationale for forming opinions on matters are often inconsistent and in conflict depending on the situation. To see an example of this thought process at work just watch any Jan Helfeld interview.

If it was me I'd try not to argue guns but start a discussion on the philosophy of liberty since that's the foundation from which such matters can be answered. You're also likely find common ground there because virtually everyone will knee-jerk claim they were born free and own themselves etc. It's only when you start testing their assertions do things begin to fall apart. She may disagree but at least it'll get her mind actually working.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.