Skip to comments.Give It to Them Straight [Article on How to Combat Anti-Gun Arguements]
Posted on 04/14/2003 3:01:59 AM PDT by 2nd_Amendment_Defender
The biggest mistake we make is failing to take the moral high ground on our issue, and letting our enemies define the terms.
THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."
WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns." (FLAW: The implication here is that if you COULD succeed, it would be a reasonable plan.)
WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry a gun."
THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer -- they're only for killing people."
WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I've never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me, blah, blah, blah." (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is okay to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)
WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they're good practice."
THEY SAY: "If we pass this CCW law, it will be like the Wild West, with shoot-outs all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it."
WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah." (flaw: You have implied that if studies showed CCW laws equaled more heat-of-passion shooting, CCW should be illegal.
WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that's not important. What is important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important that anything else, why don't we throw out the Fifth amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?".
THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period."
WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days, it's a waste of resources blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implied that if waiting periods DID reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)
WHAT WE SHOULD SAY: "How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review board before the news is reported? Wouldn't that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people who ALREADY own a handgun tells me that it's not about crime prevention, it's about harassment. Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a 'safe' one with the government as chief nanny."
THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have atomic bombs."
WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh . . ."
WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue - it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each issued muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding shells. In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission."
THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these weapons of mass destruction."
WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.
WE SHOULD SAY: "You know, driving is a luxury, where firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But let's put that aside for a moment. It's interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can AT ANY AGE go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size as you want, and you don't need to do anything if you don't use them on public property. If you DO want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This license is good in all 50 states. NO waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year- old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property."
Final comment, useful with most all arguments:
YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything."
THEY SAY: "Huh?"
YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither Bill Clinton nor Newt Gingrich is going to open up internment camps like Roosevelt did fifty-odd years ago. But think of your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it POSSIBLE that a person like that MIGHT be in control here some time in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him? If that does happen, do you REALLY want your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them to have been stripped of it BY YOU?"
WE SAY: Not sure what to say here, except that 40 or 50% of all violent crime is committed by young black males, probably in inner cities, so that perhaps the problem is with a specific segment of the population, concentrated in specific areas, and that a gun ban won't solve the problem. (The implications are 1. that guns are racist, therefore evil and must be destroyed and 2. that if the ratios were more politically correct then their premise would be proper.)
WE SHOULD SAY: The number of deaths is irrelevant. Otherwise, you might as well kills all snakes or hippos for the numbers of people they kill every year. What is important that these tools are necessary for protecting the weak and the innocent and my loved ones.
Then, as an aside, say, "However, even if the numbers of deaths were a valid measure of the propriety of a Constitutional issue, you should note that the number of lives saved every year exceeds the number of gun deaths every year." (When they try to argue that number, remind them that in addition to private gun use for protection, every police and military person carries a weapon, and their most important purpose is the protection of life.)
Just proving again what a total jerk you are. You don't have to bother, I already well aware of your personal deficiencies.
If you think the NRA doesn't do it, why don't you do it?
Well I did. I spent more hours and personal funds working on gun rights than you dream of. This is obvious, because you don't have a clue as to what the NRA does, and I've seen what they do first hand.
Then you can collect all of those "millions" of dollars sent to you and you can be a "rich", "fatcat", lobbyist like you're always complaining the NRA is.
Actually I donated my time and money. Didn't get nor want any recompense
Did you write those letters to your Senators and Congressman about the Assault Weapons Bill already?
Of course I did, Did you?
Acccidental deaths of REAL children from guns is less than 100/year. The real stats/numbers, etc., are available through NRA,
The Richmond program was sponsored by the NRA, by the way. It's a program whereby those perps who used a weapon in the commission of the crime are prosecuted by the FEDS (as well as the local DA) for Federal gun-law violations. Generally, a perp using a gun has violated several Federal laws, and they go to jail for quite a while.
In the opinion of the Supreme Court in U.S. vs Miller, the following excerpts are found:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
Therefore, according to the opinion of the Supreme Court in U.S. vs Miller, every physically capable adult male has not only the right, but the duty, to keep and bear an M16, the weapon in common use by the military at this time. There is also a great degree of certainty that the Supreme Court would have also ruled for Miller had the government attorneys properly informed the court that sawed-off shotguns were also used by the military in previous wars.
THEY'LL SAY: "That is why we have the police."
YOU SHOULD SAY: "Okay. Put yourself into this scenario: You are alone in your home when you hear someone breaking into your home. Lights are obviously on in it, so it is not likely the person doing this believes no one is inside. What do you do? Call the police? Now think from a logical standpoint. How many times have you heard of the police arriving in time to thwart the commission of a crime? Do you think they will get there in time for you? Is that something you would want to bet your life on?"
You might tell them that there are about 1,000,000 abortions a year and 40,000 automobile fatalities.