So the guy at American Legion turned out to be a long time fund raiser for them. Mans phones, calls people, arranges for donations. Said he's become disillusioned as of late, but still espouses many of their ideals. We talked a while, it was just the two of us and he's a really nice guy --he's a Korean and Vietnam vet, was in for the duration of BOTH wars and left SGM. When I told him that if they'd just back away from attacking the 2A, they'd get a LOT more votes. He said "they don't want to take away ALL your guns" and "don't you know what the 2A says, what it means?" and he went into the milita/standing army argument, to which I responded those ammendments were passed by the same congress that passed the first standing army, Legion of the US, which was renamed five years later to "US Army". He didn't really have a response for that. So I continued by telling him that the Constitution itself states that if necessary, it's the duty of the citizens to organize and defend the values of the nation, even against our own government if need be. That can only be done with a healthy respect for the 2A. That in essence, it gives the average citizen arms parity with the average soldier (to a degree, it's been whittled down of course). He said they couldn't dream of the technology we have today and I told him it was already changing in their day, explaining rifles vs. muskets. He tried to use the hunting argument slyly, saying they aren't concerned about hunting weapons but what do you hunt with AR's? I told him it's not about hunting, that it's one of the best and most common rifles for a variety of shooting sports as well as defense, and yes, people DO hunt with them, regularly too. When he learned that I had 'em, and actually had one tricked out SBR behind the seat that day, including an M2HB and others at home, he was surprised. I told him I of course keep 'em locked in a 3 ton vault using a combo and a key and take the responsibility very seriously, he got interested and wanted to hear more. He really leaned in on the NFA stuff. I told him about growing up with 'em, and it got him to reminiscing about hunting as a kid. He said his dad also kept a pistol and told him to never touch it. Then gave the "it was a different time" argument. I told him that yeah, there is a difference but that can be fixed. That he didn't touch his dads pistol for the same reason I didn't touch my dad's pistol: I respected firearms. I also had my own, was taken shooting and had been hunting, but learned early I preferred shooting to hunting. I'd also shot his pistol at the range, which gave me more respect for it as a kid. Instead of putting something off limits and sheltering me, I was taught and understood, so when friends came over, they weren't allowed to touch the firearms. I didn't share in their curiosity. I also had a wicked pellet rifle to use to train with, and had the same respect for it. I was taught firearms aren't the tools you use to settle arguments with, not to brandish and that they're last resorts for self defense. Instead of letting PlayStation or Netflix teach your kid how to use firearms, how about the parents do that instead? With real firearms? It's the only way. He ended up having to concede or agree with a lot of what I told him. I used some of you guy's arguments and recalled the first standing arm by being 1791 from "Military Jeopardy", so go 'Hide!
At the end, it went very well. I think he genuinely learned something about firearms culture and where most of us come from. That we're not "crazy gun nuts" or any of that shit. He doesn't help Dem Party anymore, but I think that was coming anyway (I think he's breaking ties altogether but not over firearms I'm sure). I find this to be common though, that if you are respectful and honest and treat them well, they usually change their mind to some degree post discussion, unless ardent hardcore anti's. It's just hard for one American to deny another American freedom based on faceless doctrine to his face when he gives a good argument and is covered by the Constitution. Groups aren't as easy to talk to.
All in all, it was a good conversation and I think he learned a lot about the culture. Hard to believe he made it this far in life without knowing some of that. But they do say America is number one when it comes to the ability of denial and avoidance of facts.
At the end, it went very well. I think he genuinely learned something about firearms culture and where most of us come from. That we're not "crazy gun nuts" or any of that shit. He doesn't help Dem Party anymore, but I think that was coming anyway (I think he's breaking ties altogether but not over firearms I'm sure). I find this to be common though, that if you are respectful and honest and treat them well, they usually change their mind to some degree post discussion, unless ardent hardcore anti's. It's just hard for one American to deny another American freedom based on faceless doctrine to his face when he gives a good argument and is covered by the Constitution. Groups aren't as easy to talk to.
All in all, it was a good conversation and I think he learned a lot about the culture. Hard to believe he made it this far in life without knowing some of that. But they do say America is number one when it comes to the ability of denial and avoidance of facts.
