[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.

We need to remember this when discussing 2nd Amendment principles with others.

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

To the Bang List.

[Support Free Republic]

---

God Bless This Great Country!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[aruanan]

Great listing! I'm bookmarking it. But it's "argument," not "arguement."

[Drammach]

Do You have a ping list?
If so, please put me on it.. ;o)

[samtheman]

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.

Worth repeating.

[dhuffman@awod.com]

Will we have the courage and committment to turn-out a popular war-time republican president in the event he re-authorizes the 'assault-weapon' ban? If we don't then we lose again and perhaps for good.

[Sam Cree]

Nice article.

THEY SAY: There are 27,000 gun deaths a year in the U.S.

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. I believe a significant portion of these deaths are accidental also.

Wondering how you counter this argument. Seems like the city of Richmond, VA has had some success here, though I don't know exactly what they did.

[from occupied ga]

The title of this article is:

Give It to Them Straight [Article on How to Combat Anti-Gun Arguements]

There is a fallacious assumption here. That is that you can counter anti-gun arguments. Countering arguments only works if both sides are willing to accept reason and logic. Can you imagine upChuck Schemer or Hitlary looking at a well reasoned article showing the value of guns in society* and saying, "Oh wow I've been wrong all this time?" Never happen. The anti-gunners have no use for reason and logic. Gun control is their religion They are devoted to it like a Mayan priest sacrificing to his god. Gun haters don't care about reason and logic, it is part of their intrinsic belief system that only the government should be allowed the power of arms.

They will lie and cheat in a heartbeat to advance that agenda. They have no conscience when it comes to serving their false god, the increase of state power. They are not succeptable to logic or reason because gun control to them is based on faith. They feel no pity for those who are harmed by criminals because they were disarmed by government. They have no remorse when their evil laws cause thousands to be killed. They will not quit because you show them the error of their ways because their firm belief is that they are not and can not be wrong about guns. They will not quit until they are dead or until those of us who believe in freedom are dead or totally enslaved.

*More Guns Less Crime by John Lott conclusively proves this

[lsee]

Excellent article...

[firebrand]

True story:

Friend 1, who is not convinced on the 2nd Amendment, to me, at the time the lefties were planning a show of civil disobedience in NYC: "What if they all had guns?"

Me: "Hmmm."

Me to Friend 2, later: "Friend 1 said, about the lefty demonstration, 'What if they all had guns?'"

Friend 2: "So we take them on."

Question: Which friend is the freeper?

[zip]

Ping, BTTT, and great post.

[wjcsux]

As always, the anti-gun crowds worst enemy is the truth.

[PhilipFreneau]

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."

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.

[Houmatt]

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'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?"

[Eastbound]

Good Article!

_______________________________________________

[demosthenes the elder]

excellent.

[Clemenza]

Bang!

[longtermmemmory]

bump for later memorizing.

[Leatherneck_MT]

I wish it was this simple with the Anti-gun crowd, but unfortunately it's not. Altho I can see that these responses would make them look ridiculous in a public debate, to these people it's not about Gun Control, it's about people control, they just will not admit that.

Remember, Adolph Hitler disarmed german citizens for a kinder gentler Germany too.

Semper Fi

[tubebender]

BUMP...