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 ...
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F584p5kJL-U&feature=youtu.be
Most people forget about the 3rd amendment in the Bill of Rights.
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.
“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!
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.
This is a cold war between liberty and tyranny.
Now that is a quotable quote.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think the determining factor is that their are no shoot’don’t shoot avenues for civilians available to them.
Knew a guy who did need 50 rounds. At night, in a parking lot, 3 perps started shooting at him from shaded bushes.
New tagline ...
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.
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.
Colonel Paul Linebarger AKA Cordwainer Smith the science fiction writer.
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.