Posted on 07/05/2011 3:50:50 AM PDT by marktwain
As Lola and I rocked up my Mom’s waterfront idyll, I knew there was going to be trouble. The Lexus 460hl sitting in her driveway told the tale. It’s a $100k+ carcoon powered by a 438 horsepower hybrid gas – electric engine. The 20mpg luxobarge can scoot from zero to sixty in 5.5 seconds. The 460hl’s a hugely expensive, enormously powerful automobile for wealthy owners who want to believe they’re doing their bit for the environment. It is the perfect car for a liberal. Mind you, the good Doctor, his erudite wife, successful son and beautiful daughter-in-law proved to be relatively open-minded. They didn’t sneer once. It was my mother, as usual, who blew me away . . .
I love my mother. As did my father, who only talked politics at the distant reaches of my mother’s limited hearing. And for good reason. Mom is the only person I know who’d fail to grasp the irony of Sean Hannity’s nickname for Barack Obama: “The Anointed One.” If Mom heard Hannity’s not-so-gentle jibe, she’d simply swear sailor-like at the Fox News curmudgeon—not for a moment suspecting that Sean nailed it: she’s deified President Obama.
Mom provides me with excellent insights into the “see no evil on our side” hearts and minds of American liberals. She personifies your basic Kind-Hearted Artistic Intellectuals (Us) vs. Neanderthal Boorish Robber Barons (Them) mindset. I never fail to sup from her splendiferous anti-Bible basher buffet, served as it is with a magnum of champagne socialism.
“Selling” my Mother on gun rights would be a bit like promoting the joys of bee-keeping to someone prone to anaphylactic shock. But her friends and I got into it. Mum felt obliged to, as the Brits say, put her oar in. She did so when the Lexus liberals started talking about high-capacity “clips.”
“There’s no need for those guns that shoot lots of bullets and kill people,” Mom said, miming a fully-automatic firearm.
“Mom, they don’t sell machine guns to civilians,” I corrected.
“Yes they do,” she said, brooking the usual amount of debate. “You can go into a gun store and buy them.”
I didn’t argue. (Hey, what do I know?) Besides, I was grateful for the wake-up call. Mom’s remark reminded me that gun control is high concept; liberals and independents are not “up” on firearms regulations’ real world impact (or lack thereof). “Supporting common sense gun control” is a euphemism for “uninformed and proud of it.”
If you’re debating gun control, never underestimate your opponents’ lack of knowledge on the subject. Before you try to explain the rational basis for your position, make sure liberal-minded gun control advocates and fence-straddlers have a basic understanding of the subject. Here are the three key points you need to cover . . .
American have the right to own guns
What? What part of “the right to keep and bear arms” don’t they understand? The “right to keep and bear arms” bit. True story: millions of people don’t know that gun ownership is a Constitutional right and/or what that means.
Before you can point out the lunacy of “common sense” restrictions on gun ownership, ask your opponents if they’re familiar with the Second Amendment. No really. And then ask why Americans have the right to armed self-defense.
There are still plenty of people who believe that the framers guaranteed the right to own guns solely to maintain a militia (i.e. a volunteer army). They think gun ownership is a collective right.
Disabuse that notion by pointing out that all our constitutional rights are individual rights. And that a “well-regulated militia” is merely a bunch of people (legal term) with an individual right to keep and bear arms getting together for common defense.
If your debatee knows that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms, ask if they agree that all our constitutional rights exist to protect us from the government. This they need to know.
Guns are safe
By and large, gun control advocates are urban dwellers who aren’t familiar with or comfortable around firearms. The “logic” they deploy when discussing firearms regulations is colored by personal ignorance and a deep-seated fear of “gun violence.”
[NB: The most liberal person I know---other than my mother---is adamantly, experientially pro-gun: "I want us to have at least the same amount of firepower as the right wing extremists."]
Pro-gun folk who counter gun control advocates’ fear with stats—proving that guns are safer than prescription meds or swimming pools (true story)—miss the point. The real basis for the antis’ argument: THEY don’t have guns so YOU shouldn’t either. NO ONE SHOULD.
Gun control is not about criminals or gun safety. It’s all about creating a level playing field—making non-gun owners feel more comfortable about not owning a gun.
The best way to make a gun grabber feel safe enough to let them let you own/carry a gun: range time. If you’re careful, a hands-on demo with an unloaded carry piece can be equally transformative. You’d be amazed how five minutes’ familiarization changes the tone of the debate.
Short of that, ask them how many gun owners there are in America. Tell them it’s around 80 million. Ask them if they’d consider privately held guns safe if .01 percent (one tenth of one percent) of these firearms owners were involved in some kind of fatal shooting.
Tell them that in 2007, less than one-half of .01 percent of American firearms owners were involved in a shooting. Half of those deaths were suicides. Most of the remaining deaths involved guns held illegally by previously convicted criminals. Are cars that safe?
Machine guns are illegal
When gun control advocates popularized the term “assault rifle,” they did more to harm gun rights than any other of our opponents’ Machiavellian maneuvers. Vast swathes of America believe that commonly available “assault rifles” are fully-automatic rifles.
The obvious cure (again) take the ballistically misinformed down to the gun range and show them what’s what. Unfortunately, most liberals would rather attend a Bush barbecue (roast pork, not politician) than shoot a gun.
Meanwhile and in any case, remind our loyal opposition the difference between semi and fully-automatic weapons, and that bad guys can’t buy machine guns at a gun store.
I know: what the hell difference does that make? American citizens should be able to buy fully-automatic rifles to defend themselves or just because of the “shall not infringe” part of the Second Amendment. But a good poker player doesn’t reveal his or her cards until they have to. And maybe not even then.
Just as gun control advocates wrap their gun banning hopes and dreams in the mantle of crime prevention, gun rights guys need to appear politically palatable to liberals who see them as “gun nuts.” Begin by not being unpalatable. Tell them machine guns are illegal.
And there you have it: three basic concepts to move the ball forward. Just remember to wipe your feet before you enter the house or my mother will have you, mate.
If the media were not a lying libtrash propaganda machine, there would be very few libtards regurgitating their lies.
The holocaust would not have happened without propaganda to mislead the masses.
Tell them that your guns are none of their business.
Since when?
Geez...what a yawner of a post....is there a reason for this?
Yes, 'yawner' enough for you to respond. /rolleyes.
Done with talking to them. That all ended November 2008. Universally, without exception, their attitude has been and always will be “guns for me, but none for thee.” Liberal leftist mentality in a nutshell. They may come to the point of owning a gun. Even liking it. But they remain the same lot who will support government directives to have them registered, and will even support confiscation so long as it only applies to others, and not themselves. Witness the vociferous proponents of “reasonable gun laws.” I, therefore, refuse to help them acquire arms or learn of their use. They made their bed. Now let them sleep in it.
New machineguns for civilians illegal since 0000 hrs, 19 MAY 1986.
You want an M16A2? $20,000.00 plus $200.00 tranfer tax, duplicate pictures, law enforcement signoff, and about 6 months backgroundcheck from NFA Branch.
If you are a cop, your M16 A2 just needs a letter from your chief/sheriff, and will cost you $900.00.
Agreed. Besides, they are the enemy. End of story.
When gun control advocates popularized the term “assault rifle,” they did more to harm gun rights than any other of our opponents’ Machiavellian maneuvers. Vast swathes of America believe that commonly available “assault rifles” are fully-automatic rifles.That is planned:
"The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's
confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic
assault weapons anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to
be a machine gun can only increase that chance of public support for
restrictions on these weapons."
-- Josh Sugarman, 1988, Violence Policy Center.
Good article, but I would point out that full auto weapons are NOT illegal.
They simply require a Class III Federal Firearms license.
Which are not easy to obtain.
You want an M16A2? $20,000.00 plus $200.00 tranfer tax, duplicate pictures, law enforcement signoff, and about 6 months backgroundcheck from NFA Branch.
Your second sentence seems to contradict your first sentence.
;-)
So it may seem. Machineguns made after 19 May 86 are illegal for civilians. Want an M16 a2, your receiver (the registered part) must have been made prior to 18 May 86 at 2359. YOu are paying for an older receiver in a less supply, more demand market. Is it worth 20k? No. You want one? Cough it up as your LEO buddies and .gov types pay <$1,000.
The three things I tell Liberals about guns is:
1. Not you.
2. Not mine.
3. Not ever.
You have to know what people think- we don’t need to hear ONLY our side all the time
Always preaching to the choir is not helpful
They don't. They get to buy brand spanking new receivers. Civilians can only own those manufactured before 19 MAY 1986.
If I can get 20,000 for my fully auto M-16, why in the world would I want to sell my fully auto M-16 to a cop for 900.00?
You would be stupid to do so. Plus, why would a cop want a 20 year old + receiver when he can get one made last week on even better milling and CNC machines?
Basically it is the law of supply and demand which exaggerates and inflates the civilian "legally transferable" machineguns....more and more money chasing fewer and fewer items as they disappear into collections.
Since 1968 when they decided that no new MGs will be allowed to American collectors.
To own older MGs, you have to get a tax stamp, own a safe to store them in, and give the BATFE a map to your home showing where you keep them. Further, they reserve the right to make unannounced inspections of your home to make certain the MGs are there.
That may not be “illegal” but that sure as Hell is “infringement.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.