How many times have you found yourself trying to engage an anti and run into the following talking points?
The 2A is a State’s right to have a Militia.
Do you have the right to own howitzers, B-52’s and nukes?
The 2A covers Flintlock muskets, not modern firearms with shoulder things that go up.
With a modern military, the 2A is irrelevant.
It’s the job of the police to protect us.
Most of the rest fall into the general category of being utterly incapable of making a distinction between wolves and sheepdogs.
How many times have you responded:
Individuals have Rights, States have powers. The organized vs unorganized Militia distinction.
The Militia Acts of 1792 and the distinction between hand held and crew served weapons. The difference between firearms and destructive devices.
Quill pens, printing press, radio, TV, interweb tubes, blah blah blah.
True nature of the 2A as a defense against tyranny. Power in the hands of the people. The Revolutionary War.
Cops can’t be everywhere, cops only respond after a crime has occurred, cops too heavy to carry.
How many minds have you changed? Hoplophobes into neutrals? Nuetrals into pro-gunners? How many newbies have you taken to the range? Ever convinced someone to go out and buy their first gun and take some safety training? I’m not in any way trying to say the above arguments are ineffective, I’m honestly asking what arguments have you found to be the most effective? What’s your ice breaker for an anti. How do you engage and frame the topic?
I’m just a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, but I like this approach. Once I get a hint at pure unadulterated PSH, I ask a simple question.
Would you like to come over to my house and join me in tracking down the skunk that lives by the river so we can poke him with pointy sticks?
Then I ask them why not.