Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Argument that Wins the 'Assault Weapon' Debate (Simply referring to our rights won't convince)
American Thinker ^ | 02/02/2013 | William A. Levinson

Posted on 02/02/2013 1:36:26 PM PST by SeekAndFind

General Carl von Clausewitz defined the center of gravity as the objective whose achievement results in the enemy's total defeat. We must therefore identify this single objective or, in a political controversy, a single issue, and concentrate our resources accordingly. In the case of the "assault weapon" debate, this is the basic and natural human right of self-defense. If we present the argument correctly, the other side has absolutely no defense whatsoever.

The Target Audience: Swing Voters and the Opposing Rank and File

Colonel Paul Linebarger's Psychological Warfare states clearly that any communication whose purpose is to influence attitudes, beliefs, and actions is propaganda by definition. Encouragements to get flu shots or adopt shelter pets are examples of honest and beneficial propaganda. The same goes for injunctions against smoking, driving while drunk, or texting while driving.

Nazi cartoons of Jews with exaggerated Semitic features, the White Aryan Resistance's cartoons of Blacks with exaggerated Negro features, and cartoonist Steve Benson's portrayals of gun owners with nuts for heads are dishonest and malevolent propaganda. The same goes for Barack Obama's use of children as human shields in his war against the Second Amendment.

(Benson, an Arizona Cardinals fan, also drew a cartoon of a stereotyped Pittsburgh Steelers fan, complete with pierogies and kielbasa for brain cells -- an apparent ethnic slur against Poles. Benson's derogatory stereotypes of gun owners, meanwhile, go against Linebarger's warning against demonizing the other side's rank and file. I recall a Benson cartoon of a drunk "NRA member" who was letting his child play with a loaded gun. Here is another that is almost libelous, because it accuses the NRA of being mass murderer Jared Lee Loughner's accomplice. If we show Benson's hate propaganda to gun owners who are "only" interested in hunting, skeet shooting, and so on,

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: assaultweapons; banglist; guncontrol; guns; secondamendment

1 posted on 02/02/2013 1:36:31 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The author’s challenge:

1) Ask a very simple question: “Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to defend themselves from violent attack?”

Even people like Barack Obama, Andrew Cuomo, and Dianne Feinstein will not dare to answer in the negative.

(BTW, They will, however, demur that nobody needs an “assault weapon” to exercise this right. Cuomo said quite correctly that nobody needs ten bullets to kill a deer, but he knows full well that the Second Amendment is not about shooting deer)

2) Next question: “How many bullets might a person reasonably need to stop one or more violent specimens of the most dangerous animal on earth?”

Police departments apparently believe the answer to be 13 to 17 rounds of 9 millimeter, as shown by their use of Glocks with these magazine capacities. A .45 caliber sidearm has far more stopping power, so seven rounds (the maximum now allowed by New York) may be adequate to end a life or death confrontation that somebody else starts.

When it comes to rifles, police departments believe the answer to be no less than 30 rounds of .223, as shown by their deployment of AR-15s. The only difference between a police officer and a private citizen is that the former has the authority and duty to intervene in situations that the ordinary citizen should, or even must, avoid. If either needs a firearm for any non-sporting purpose, though, he or she needs it for exactly the same reason.


2 posted on 02/02/2013 1:40:13 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
from real saxophonist, another good one:

MRCOLIONNOIR: ASSAULT RIFLE OR DEFENSE RIFLE?

3 posted on 02/02/2013 1:42:36 PM PST by cyn (Benghazi... the TRAVESTY continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F584p5kJL-U&feature=youtu.be

Most people forget about the 3rd amendment in the Bill of Rights.


4 posted on 02/02/2013 1:45:33 PM PST by PhiloBedo (You gotta roll with the punches and get with what's real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
1) Ask a very simple question: “Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to defend themselves from violent attack?”

That's the one they consistently refuse to answer. Name-calling interspersed with threats, subject changes, non-sequiturs and logical fallacies usually ensues.

These people lack the price of admission to any normal discussion or debate: facts ,reason and logic.

5 posted on 02/02/2013 2:02:25 PM PST by Noumenon (One individual with courage, determination and a rifle can change the course of history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“The first step is to challenge the other side with a very simple question: “Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to defend themselves from violent attack?” Even people like Barack Obama, Andrew Cuomo, and Dianne Feinstein will not dare to answer in the negative”

The problem here is that, believe it or not, many libs DON’T believe you have a right of self defense. They actually believe that your only alternative is to try to get away but you CANNOT fight back! I kid you not!


6 posted on 02/02/2013 2:11:35 PM PST by Castigar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
So if 13-17 rounds of 9mm is "necessary" for police - police who are trained, tested, and who routinely practice - how many should a "civilian" have?

A citizen is likely not as highly trained or as well practiced as police. A citizen is likely nervous in a confrontation. A citizen facing more than one attacker, how many rounds are "necessary"?

If the cop is twice as effective as the average joe, then 26-34 rounds of 9mm... per attacker is the bare minimum.

50 round mags aren't even the bare minimum.

Do you want the bare minimum?

Would you rather have more than you need, or need more than you have?

3-4 50 round sticks - better safe than sorry dead.

7 posted on 02/02/2013 2:15:09 PM PST by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
It is funny how this issue keeps being framed as a debate when it is no such thing. It's not like we have some good arguments and they have some good arguments. There is no good argument for gun control unless you are talking about the best way a government can mass murder it's citizens.

This is a cold war between liberty and tyranny.

8 posted on 02/02/2013 2:17:22 PM PST by Ajnin (Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnocet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ajnin
"This is a cold war between liberty and tyranny."

Now that is a quotable quote.

9 posted on 02/02/2013 2:22:51 PM PST by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
“The only difference between a police officer and a private citizen is that the former has the authority and duty to intervene in situations that the ordinary citizen should, or even must, avoid.”

One of the concepts that constantly irritates me is how the “anti’s” constantly accuse rational people of vigilantism. Police officers only have the authority to act because “we the people” delegate that authority to them them. Their authority is not an enshrined right in the Constitution, but our protection from them is.
The second point is that if they have no binding duty to protect us, as has been upheld by numerous court rulings, then whatever firepower the police need is irrelevant.
Our individual right to self defense is inalienable and absolute.

10 posted on 02/02/2013 2:36:59 PM PST by bitterohiogunclinger (Proudly casting a heavy carbon footprint as I clean my guns ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Castigar
The problem here is that, believe it or not, many libs DON’T believe you have a right of self defense. They actually believe that your only alternative is to try to get away but you CANNOT fight back!

True. They even have their own preferred term for it: "Escalation", if you try to defend yourself.

When attacked, you should run. If you can not run, crawl! As fast as you can away!

Kumbaya, and all that.

11 posted on 02/02/2013 2:39:25 PM PST by Utilizer (What does not kill you... -can sometimes damage you QUITE severely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid.

Its what the RATZ do all the time.

Their talking point: "Why would you NEED a weapon that shoots that many bullets?"

OUR TALKING POINT: "BECAUSE THE TYRANT HAS ONE."

After I use this, then I just shut up and stare at them. They gargle and spit all over themselves. They go speechless. Funny as hell to see.

Then I get the condescending "Oh Be Serious." That's when I list off Egypt, Syria, Libya, China and on and on.

Next comes the "Well,That Can't Happen Here."

That's when I bestow the "coup de grass":

"Of course it can't, because our citizens have assault rifles."

At this point they start throwing things at me.

12 posted on 02/02/2013 2:57:03 PM PST by ConradofMontferrat (According to mudslimz, my handle is a HATE CRIME. And I HOPE they don't like it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid.

Its what the RATZ do all the time.

Their talking point: "Why would you NEED a weapon that shoots that many bullets?"

OUR TALKING POINT: "BECAUSE THE TYRANT HAS ONE."

After I use this, then I just shut up and stare at them. They gargle and spit all over themselves. They go speechless. Funny as hell to see.

Then I get the condescending "Oh Be Serious." That's when I list off Egypt, Syria, Libya, China and on and on.

Next comes the "Well,That Can't Happen Here."

That's when I bestow the "coup de grass":

"Of course it can't, because our citizens have assault rifles."

At this point they start throwing things at me.

13 posted on 02/02/2013 3:43:27 PM PST by ConradofMontferrat (According to mudslimz, my handle is a HATE CRIME. And I HOPE they don't like it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
I disagree with your post. Having trained many civilians and law enforcement types. I have found civilians to be more conscientious about training and being proficient with their choice of firearms.

I think the determining factor is that their are no shoot’don’t shoot avenues for civilians available to them.

14 posted on 02/02/2013 4:15:49 PM PST by Glennb51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

Knew a guy who did need 50 rounds. At night, in a parking lot, 3 perps started shooting at him from shaded bushes.


15 posted on 02/02/2013 4:29:14 PM PST by ctdonath2 (End of debate. Your move.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

New tagline ...


16 posted on 02/02/2013 4:36:10 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Probably only need one. The arsenal is just in case.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

From _The_Peacekeeper_: “I’m not afraid of the man who wants ten nuclear weapons, Colonel. I’m terrified of the man who only wants one.”

Likewise, it’s not the guy with dozens of guns, hundreds of large capacity magazines, and tens of thousands of rounds of ammo to fear, it’s the thug with one gun and a half-dozen rounds.


17 posted on 02/02/2013 4:55:59 PM PST by ctdonath2 (End of debate. Your move.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The core paragraph: When it comes to rifles, police departments believe the answer to be no less than 30 rounds of .223, as shown by their deployment of AR-15s. The only difference between a police officer and a private citizen is that the former has the authority and duty to intervene in situations that the ordinary citizen should, or even must, avoid. If either needs a firearm for any non-sporting purpose, though, he or she needs it for exactly the same reason. The definition of a weapon that is "reasonable" for legitimate self-defense is therefore, "Any weapon that is routinely available to law enforcement agencies."
18 posted on 02/03/2013 3:21:19 AM PST by trebb (Allies no longer trust us. Enemies no longer fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

On a related note, see this item:

We Are The Police And The Police Is Us
http://www.thewarriorclass.blogspot.com/2013/01/we-are-police-and-police-is-us.html

He bring in the original precepts for police from Sir Robert Peel.


19 posted on 02/03/2013 3:35:55 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Colonel Paul Linebarger AKA Cordwainer Smith the science fiction writer.


20 posted on 02/03/2013 11:54:44 AM PST by InABunkerUnderSF (Because 2 terms with Jerry Brown as Governor was all I could take.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

Good post!


21 posted on 02/03/2013 1:49:22 PM PST by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson