ltorlo64
01-12-2016, 09:55 AM
I have been meaning to post a discussion I had with another officer at work last Friday. It was just after President Obama had done his news conference and town hall on CNN. This officer was born and raised in Philadelphia and his views lean more liberal, especially as regards guns and gun control. He knows that I support the Second Amendment and the rest of the Constitution and we have had some talks about other sections, just not the SA.
I am generally the first person in the office and this officer was there just before I was, so we had the office to ourselves. He started the conversation asking me what I thought about the President's action and why it was so controversial. First I explained that most of what he did didn't require an executive order or would require congressional action so they seemed like a waste of time. Then I said the areas that are really causing concern are his proposals for mental health and for universal background checks. He asked what the concerns were with mental health and I explained that his proposals ignore due process, sort of like the various "No Fly" lists. He immediately understood the issue and the danger of ignoring due process in removing a right and agreed that those were bad ideas.
Next he asked what was so bad about universal background checks. First I pointed out that universal background checks would have little to no effect on crime and criminals acquiring guns which he agreed with. He then asked why we should do it anyway just to be sure. I explained how the process works and how the only real thing it does is allow the government to easily find which law abiding citizens own firearms. We discussed how the Constitution and SA were designed to ensure that the government could not become tyrannical and that if it did the people would have a way to defend themselves from tyranny. I then pointed out that the SA did not allow for anarchy as the Constitution also invokes very grave punishments for treason, a check and a balance both on government and on the citizenry. I think I swayed him to understand why universal background checks are not a good idea.
I was glad that we had the office to ourselves so that the conversation did not get derailed by other views or turn into an argument by one side or the other being able to overwhelm the conversation. He is still not a conservative but he realizes that there are good, factual reasons for us to not agree with the President and to not want gun control. He actually said that when you watch TV or read the news the only people that support gun control are the crazies that cannot articulate their positions logically. He said it was refreshing to get a new perspective that was presented in a way he could understand.
I am generally the first person in the office and this officer was there just before I was, so we had the office to ourselves. He started the conversation asking me what I thought about the President's action and why it was so controversial. First I explained that most of what he did didn't require an executive order or would require congressional action so they seemed like a waste of time. Then I said the areas that are really causing concern are his proposals for mental health and for universal background checks. He asked what the concerns were with mental health and I explained that his proposals ignore due process, sort of like the various "No Fly" lists. He immediately understood the issue and the danger of ignoring due process in removing a right and agreed that those were bad ideas.
Next he asked what was so bad about universal background checks. First I pointed out that universal background checks would have little to no effect on crime and criminals acquiring guns which he agreed with. He then asked why we should do it anyway just to be sure. I explained how the process works and how the only real thing it does is allow the government to easily find which law abiding citizens own firearms. We discussed how the Constitution and SA were designed to ensure that the government could not become tyrannical and that if it did the people would have a way to defend themselves from tyranny. I then pointed out that the SA did not allow for anarchy as the Constitution also invokes very grave punishments for treason, a check and a balance both on government and on the citizenry. I think I swayed him to understand why universal background checks are not a good idea.
I was glad that we had the office to ourselves so that the conversation did not get derailed by other views or turn into an argument by one side or the other being able to overwhelm the conversation. He is still not a conservative but he realizes that there are good, factual reasons for us to not agree with the President and to not want gun control. He actually said that when you watch TV or read the news the only people that support gun control are the crazies that cannot articulate their positions logically. He said it was refreshing to get a new perspective that was presented in a way he could understand.