Debunk Liberal Arguments - Discussion Thread

[amagi 0]

Hey All,

 

I'm sure all of you are going through what I am going through. I'm getting into a "discussion" every 5-seconds about gun control and our God given right to defend ourselves.

 

I figured it would be a good time to have a thread to discuss the Liberal intelligentsia's favorite go to moves for gun control.

 

I will base my initial original posting off of an argument I had with a girl (she's actually a super cute Obama Staffer, but I don't think I have a chance... considering I'm a gun owner monster).

 

Her response to NJ's 18 civilian disarmament bills which were presented in the legislature today where nothing but praise and good will. Her general attitude was that, yes owning a firearm is a "right" but it is a "right" that should be subjected to heavy scrutiny and security checks. Psychological evaluations, site checks, banning online ammo purchase. These, in her eyes, are all very reasonable steps to insure public safety while at the same time making sure we still have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Now, of course I retorted that a Right should not be subjected to the whims and passions of majority rule, that government bureaucratic procedure is already hampering and cumbersome and adding a medical evaluation (one largely based off of intuition and opinion I might add) is far from an objective measure of who can be deemed fit to own a firearm. Furthermore, there are a myriad of additional unconstitutional issues raised with these bills. I also added that, these measures have little to do with public safety and a lot more to do with making owning and using a firearm harder, more difficult, more expensive and just plain not worth it.

 

Her retorts were angry jabberings about how we regulate and control all other activities in this country, why not firearms...and because they are deadly weapons, we need to regulate the *$@% Out of them. She also accused me of being a conspiracy theorist Like it's hard to imagine that they want to ban online ammo sales or make you use a approved psychotherapist to not make it more difficult to exercise our rights.

 

Before I could respond, she was leaving (left). It's sad that, she sees the fact that we haven't destroyed the 2nd Amendment like we've destroyed the other nine a bad thing. She recited that old so famous "You can't yell fire in a move" and "we register cars, and licence drivers...why not guns and gun owners???" HUH!

 

I'm not sure if there is any arguing with someone like this...and to your average person the retorts of "well, the government keeping records of people who own guns and deciding who can own a gun is exactly what is anathema to a free society and goes against the origins of the amendment" don't go over well with your Average American Sheeple.

 

So - I ask you NJ Gun owners, how do we boil down our argument to get the undecided to decide in our favor? How do we entice an entire group of people who care about designer clothing, soccer practice, farmers markets, and American Idol more than they care about their rights to ... actually care about their rights and not surrender them at the first sign of danger and scary news broad casts?

 

The arguments need to be easy to follow, easy to understand and they need to HIT HARD. Any ideas?

[Walt of Destiny 412]

I would start with the first amendment. The framers never envisioned the telegraph, radio, television, cable tv, the Internet nor most assuredly; Social Media. Yet those that would infringe on an explicit right as granted by our foundation document in the very next sentence, use the "musket" argument to make their case.

 

As the saying goes, "what part of ...'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?"

 

At the beginning of this political power play, while they danced gleefully on the bodies of innocents, I was reserved and virtually silent on their attacks. As I grow weary of their misinformation, outright lies and manipulations, I am getting angrier and angrier. And as they always do, they have overplayed their hand. We will not go gentle...

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

Absolute waste of time discussing gun control with haters......they should be simply mocked and despised for their small minded view points which are simple carbon copies of their buddies in any anti gun organization.

[Zell959 40]

When you end up in a tense discussion with someone that close minded and clueless, I think you have to shift your goal from convincing them otherwise to simply replying that you completely disagree with their statements & the underlying premise behind them in a manner that makes it clear to anyone in earshot that you are't the one being irrational.

[jackandjill 683]

Few discussions I had , started with Anti-2nd triggering conversation and after few productive exchanges, went into heavy bias of "doing something is better than nothing", "dont you have empathy for the little kids", "is your heart so cold that you dont want to do something" .. blah, blah blah. Thats where I withdraw myself from the discussion because its apparent that the intent is not on any real solutions but a preset agenda.

 

However, IF I ever come across an intelligent individual who like to discuss history, human psychology, power corruption and natural rights, I would also bring up Due Process. Constitution codifies ecosystem of rights, all to promote and respect Free Will and Self Defense (preservation) of Citizens. Due Process is an opportunity to self defend from the accuser and Right to Bear Arms is self defend from physical world.

 

Some Anti-2nd argue that people who invoke 2nd amendment as a way to fight tyranny are paranoid. That the Govt is already too big and has better tools, capabilities and weaponry to squash . But then the same logic should apply to Due Process. If the Govt is so mighty and there is no point in fighting, we might as well give up Due Process, trust Govt Prosecutor to do the right thing and hang the accused immediately.

 

 

Same applies to First Amendment. If the Govt is so good, strong and there is no point in criticizing, then we should also get away with First Amendment.

 

Oh, and many child abusers, killers got away with punishment because of Due Process and First Amendment. That DOES NOT mean we should go abolish them too.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

I totally agree with you. You don't have a chance with her.

[Bob2222 317]

I will base my initial original posting off of an argument I had with a girl (she's actually a super cute Obama Staffer, but I don't think I have a chance... considering I'm a gun owner monster).

 

 

If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.

 

 

If you're attracted to cute young things with brains of mush, smile noncommittally, and ask her for a date. Don't talk about politics or guns.

 

The seeds of conservatism begin to sprout when they look at their pay stubs and discover that they're not getting half of it, somebody else is.

[raz-0 1,259]

She thinks she has a reasoned viewpoint. Make her prove to herself otherwise.

 

Usually one of the best first steps is to ask them what the current laws are to actually procure a firearm and ammo. MAke them tell you what they think it is, and then when they get it wrong, tell them the potential jail time for their version vs reality, the liklihood that you would have just been told no, and then get them back on track with the correct next step. Especially for NJ, fill in the timeline. Have her role play someone intent on comitting a crime, or better yet, role play a whole restraining orde against a crazy violent person who is stalking them.

 

THe lowest hanging fruit is why the need to limit the purchase of ammo? How will those regulations impact crimes? Ask for an example of a crime it would have stopped.

[Albanian 121]

The whole yelling "fire" in the movie theater thing is bs because a movie theater is privately owned and they can limit your speech if they want to and you do not have to go there. Besides, causing a human stampede and creating a false panic is what you get in trouble for, not yelling "fire".

 

I do not agree with forced registration and insurance with cars.

 

Then, there is the fact that criminals don't go through these processes. They go to Newark or Camden and purchase their guns illegally. Also don't know if you guys know about it, but online websites illegally sell guns as well, anonymously. Granted they aren't that popular but people do it and I wouldn't be surprised to see it become more popular.

[raz-0 1,259]

The whole yelling "fire" in the movie theater thing is bs because a movie theater is privately owned and they can limit your speech if they want to and you do not have to go there. Besides, causing a human stampede and creating a false panic is what you get in trouble for, not yelling "fire".

 

I do not agree with forced registration and insurance with cars.

 

Then, there is the fact that criminals don't go through these processes. They go to Newark or Camden and purchase their guns illegally. Also don't know if you guys know about it, but online websites illegally sell guns as well, anonymously. Granted they aren't that popular but people do it and I wouldn't be surprised to see it become more popular.

 

The yelling fire thing is actually apt. There are ZERO laws about yelling fire in a theater. You don't need a permit, nobody tries to pre-emptively prevent it other than telling you it would be a bad/stupid thing to do. You simply aren't shielded form the consequences. You don't go to jail for illegal speech, the result is somewhere between being ejected form the theater for being annoying, and being charged with a crime due to deliberately creating a situation that caused injury to people.

[PeteF 1,044]

The whole yelling "fire" in the movie theater thing is bs because a movie theater is privately owned and they can limit your speech if they want to and you do not have to go there. Besides, causing a human stampede and creating a false panic is what you get in trouble for, not yelling "fire".

 

The difference between yelling fire in a theater and owning a gun is one is an ACTION the other is an ABILITY.

 

You are always ABLE to yell fire in a theater. It is the ACTION of doing it in the wrong situation that gets you in trouble.

 

The proper analogy to a gun is.

You are ABLE to have a gun. The ACTION of brandishing / shooting in the wrong situation gets you in trouble.

 

People using this argument are trying to take away the ABILITY to own the gun, the ACTION is already illegal.

[Handyman 5,682]

You can't win an argument with a true liberal. Their indoctrination takes root so completely I am beginning to regard liberalism as a genetic disease.

 

The loss of the lives of children is of course a horrible tragedy. Even so, it cannot serve as a pretense for restricting the rights of an entire nation. Hundreds of thousands of people died to secure and defend our rights.

[ruger9 0]

Agree it's a waster of time debating anti-gunners; they don't acknowledge facts, statistics, or constitutional study. Founders intent is irrelevant because they were rich white slaveholders, and besides we've outgrown the constitution anyway. You can't debate with the willfully ignorant.

 

However- as for those who are curious to actually learn what the founder's intent was, that's easy. Quotes all over the place showing exactly what the founder's intent was for 2A, as well as the definitions of the word "militia" (the general populace). "Infringed" is also easily defined.

 

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

 

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

 

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

 

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

 

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

 

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

 

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

 

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

 

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

 

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

 

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

 

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

 

 

Infringe:

• Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
  

[MandM 2]

I usually lead off with what should be a shining example of an anti-gunner's perfect place to live... Chicago.

 

500+ gun crimes in 2012 and they have laws in place akin to what every anti-gunner wants to inflict on the rest of us. Waiting period, registration, permits, etc.

 

BUT... this talking point has a draw back.... it's too logical! Generally the anti-gunner then starts to sputter and turn red and "but, but, but England or Australia" at which point, it's clear that they're too closed-minded, illogical or just plain dim, and I find better ways to utilize my time.

[bulpup 98]

One thing to consider is that people you call liberals might actually own guns.

 

 

What I like to do when women in particular ask is say "now just imagine if we did this with the nineteenth amendment."

 

Then watch them scratch their heads and relish the thought of what they think when they google it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kingsoverqueens 10]

The arguments need to be easy to follow, easy to understand and they need to HIT HARD. Any ideas?

I find myself saying to or rather asking the other person "how does that make us safer?" I've found that most of their responses can be easily countered with historical or even my own first person exerience.

 

Ex: "Large magazines should be banned!"

"How will that make us safer?"

"Nobody needs a large magazine"

"2A isn't a needs based right, but again, how does banning them make us safer?"

"You can't shoot that fast if you have to reload."

Then I explain to them about how fast USPSA shooters can reload and you see in their eyes that the've been beaten

"But nobody neeeeds that many bullets."

 

It's enough to make you nuts. I really try not to argue with people because because it just makes me angry.

[Handyman 5,682]

I like it that they always make an issue of how much ammo people have: "The shooter had recently purchased 6000 rounds."

 

How long would it take to shoot 6000 rounds? Wouldn't your finger fall off first? If you wanted to rob a bank, you would need someone to hold the door open for your so you could shove your wheelbarrow full of ammo cans inside.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

I like it that they always make an issue of how much ammo people have: "The shooter had recently purchased 6000 rounds."

 

How long would it take to shoot 6000 rounds? Wouldn't your finger fall off first? If you wanted to rob a bank, you would need someone to hold the door open for your so you could shove your wheelbarrow full of ammo cans inside.

 

 

That's a great point. The reflex, feel-good reaction of liberal politicians (like Lautenberg) to limit ammo sales is going to hurt the sports shooter, not the mass murderer. How much ammo is needed for a mass shooting, a couple of hundred rounds at most?

[vladtepes 1,060]

I ask them to tell me what percentage of violent crime comes from "assault rifles"

 

when they give me a blank stare long enough I explain the vast majority of gun crimes are caused by handguns so they can be concealed..

 

I then go on to explain that I understand mass shootings are pretty awful, and that I understand they have been used in some of them...

 

so then I tell them about columbine.. the weapon load out consisted of ONE rifle (equipped with 10 round magazines, and a couple SHOTGUNS, while acknowledging there was one higher capacity magazine but it was in a pistol).. I then go on to explain this happened DURING the assault weapons ban... a ban which statistically did not really impact crime substantially.. if at all..

 

at that point I look at them and say... so mass shootings happen with or without bans in place.. they can happen with something as simple as a shotgun.. and the majority of crimes are committed with handguns.. NOT rifles.. so with all those FACTS in mind.. please.. explain to me how banning rifles is going to make us safer...

 

I dont get mad.. or emotional.. I just explain it that simply.. pointing out the the potential legislation does nothing to address the actual problem... in doing that I totally remove dumb questions like "why would you even need that"... it doesnt matter why I NEED it.. what matters is simply that it is NOT The problem..

[GlassFanta 0]

Then, there is the fact that criminals don't go through these processes. They go to Newark or Camden and purchase their guns illegally.

 

While we are dispelling myths, we should dispel this one too.

 

S&W, Mossberg, Bushmaster, et. all do not ship wholesale orders to "Mr. Shady Gun Dealer, Newark NJ". Virtually all guns in the USA were at one time part of the "legal" market.

 

By and large, there is absolutely no legal requirement in most of the country for a private seller to verify the status of the person buying the gun from them. Plenty of "criminals" obtain their guns from private sellers they may know, friends, friends of friends, co workers, people at a gun show, off an in-state message board meet up, the list goes on and on. Add to the fact that plenty of people selling their guns are also not the "Internet Gun Forum Pseduo-Lawyer" everyone online seems to be, and could hardly give two shits who the buyer is as long as he's got cash in hand. Then you figure who knows how many straw purchases there are. I've lived in FL and people in the parking lot of a gun show barely even glance at your driver's license and that's enough for them to make the sale. And I stuck out as a snow bird when I lived there, if I l had a southern drawl, I guarantee no one would have even asked to see my DL.

 

Also you completely forget that being denied a NICS requires a conviction. Plenty of people are up to no good, but have a clean record. Remember, a good criminal doesn't get caught? So they can walk right in and buy a gun just like you if they wanted to.

 

People who often repeat the lie "criminals buy their guns from [nearby ghetto city]" are often simply applying a very limited view of gun purchasing from a state like NJ, where all the "good guys" wait 6 months of hassle from the local PD and everyone else with a gun bought it off a "gang banger" in a "back alley" the reality is there are a LOT of guns in the USA, there are a LOT of ways to buy them.

 

Whether it becomes an "illegal" gun that day, the next week, or 40 years later when they find it in Grandpa's closet after he goes to the nursing home, at some point in time it was on the "legal" market.

 

I'm as Pro-2A as they come, but facts are facts. It's a bit hypocritical if we all sit here and bash people who spread myths, while spreading myths of our own. I'm not saying these conditions justify any sort of restrictions, but if we're gonna act like experts we ought to have our facts straight.

[Vlad G 345]

Here is my list of simple arguments. You can expand upon each of them, but they should cover pretty much every argument I've seen anti-gunners make. Some of them are out of date, this have been collected from some various sources over the years.

 

 

 

 

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops Need guns while on patrol.

 

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

 

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

 

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

 

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

 

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

 

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

 

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

 

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense — give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

 

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

 

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for your digital problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.

 

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1903.

 

13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state militia.

 

14. These phrases," right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

 

15. We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.

 

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them.

 

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles," because they are military weapons.

 

18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera.

 

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

 

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

 

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

 

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

 

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

 

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

 

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

 

26. A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

 

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

 

28. The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

 

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

 

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

 

31. Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

 

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

 

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

 

34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

 

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

 

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, Need a gun.

 

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but "civilians" do not.

 

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

 

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

 

40. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," they don't mean you. Really.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

Well done Vlad G. Those are all very good.

[silverado427 10,731]

Nice list.

[Vlad G 345]

I can't take credit for it, as I said it comes from others, its just handy to have around.

[BCeagle 12]

You should have just told her to shut up and make you a sandwich.

[amagi 0]

I thought this was a great way to address the "fire in a theater" argument:

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/foghorn/the-second-amendment-the-first-amendment-and-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-auditorium/#more-188093

[MandM 2]

There's something on the order of 30x more deaths by car than there are by "Assault Weapons" in any given year... BAN CARS!!!

 

There's 600,000 deaths per year (about 1500x higher than deaths by assault weapons) due to heart disease... BAN HEARTS!!!

 

 

All kidding aside... the biggest problem with all the knee-jerk reactions by our lawmakers and the MSM and all is that it's all EMOTIONAL. There's very little actual logic being used. Emotions rule the day and are the basis for these "calls for action."