[ezo4]

I havent seen this posted yet so here it is. If it has been its worth reading again.

[LouD]

Good post!

[MindBender26]

Actually, this still needs a little work.

In any public conflictual issue, about 40% are on one side, 40% on the other, and the decision will be made by the remaining 20% of the swing/undecided voters.

A classic example of forgetting this was when Elian's relatives in Miami had the support of 99% of the Cubans in Miami, but directed their efforts at getting the remaining 1%. In doing that, they forgot that public pressure would come not just from South Florida, but from the entire 50 states. For example, they kept calling Elian "this Cuban boy."

If you live in Peoria, it's easy to send a Cuban boy back to Cuba. Had they referred to Elian as "the newest American" and had his picture taken in his new Cub Scout uniform, (along with other Americanizing activities) the rest of the country would have followed Miami's thought process.

In these answers above, we need to talk more about what is important to listeners, not just us. We need to convince them, not us.

FReepers are big on the 2d Amendment, but the public isn't. Certainly, it's a constitutional right, but so is the 5th, and most people think anyone who invokes it is a crook. People are not swayed by law quotes unless you can make them personally relevant.

Remember, concentrate on the needs, desires and feelings of the listeners! ... not your needs and feelings. Talk about criminals already having guns, and since they are already committed to a life of burglary, muggings, rape, robbery and murder, do you really think one more law is going to stop them?

Ask a typical anti-gun parent; "If you don't like guns to defend your own home, that's fine.... but imagine if you were the mother of Polly Klass or Elizabeth Smart, and some kidnapper/rapist/murderer was breaking into your home to take your daughter, and you knew I lived next door and had a gun for defense, and the police were 20 minutes away as they always are... and you called me for help, would you want me to say, "Mary, I'd love to come running over and stop this rapist from taking your daughter, but since you voted to take away my rifle, I have nothing to help you with??????"

That's life in the real world, Mary. Do either of us ever think that would happen?

No.

But could you ever forgive yourself if it did?"

Remember, we convince the otherside when me make the price of retaining their beliefs higher than the cost of accepting ours. Let that mother above continue to hate guns, as long as she will not vote to take them away, because, since your argument, she sees the danger of losing her daughter as a worse danger than having a gun in the hands of one of her neighboors.

[Joe Brower]

An oldie but goodie.

[JZoback]

ping

[tahiti]

There is one and only one answer to all of these questions and this is how I have been answering these questions for years:

"Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges, Amendment II,

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

What part of "people," "right of," "shall not," and "be infringed" do you not understand?"

You see folks, arms rights are not subject to political discussions of permits, types of arms, usefulness, registration, etc.

To keep and bear arms is a RIGHT. Period.

Also, it should be noted that driving your privately owned automobile, on roads that you have paid for through gasoline taxes is not a luxury. It is a right, as well.

Amendment IX:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people."

Never concede that driving your automobile on publicly funded roads is a "privilege." Again, it is the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges.

[copycat]

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.

Even Better..."This gun is not designed for taking lives, it is designed for defending mine."

[dd5339]

John Ross Ping!

[junta]

First rule of poltical debate; Never allow the Left's claim of moral superiority go unchallenged. It seems even the best conservatives, even Limbaugh go straight to the minutae of an argument without first refuting the claims set by the Left of their occupying the moral highground.

[Mr. Thorne]

bump

[Vic3O3]

ping!

[Travis McGee]

Bang!

[Centurion2000]

He's got good points but I don't bother to debate with liberals anymore. They've come out of the closet on their desire to destroy the U.S. You don't treat with your enemies, you destroy them.

[VMI70]

Bump

[Vigilantcitizen]

Bttt...