Help responding to a liberal on gun control...

[Rob0115 1,107]

Don't you two have ideological differences.  Rationality doesn't matter at that point.  

[JimB1 555]

You cannot argue with a liberal like maintenanceguy said.

 

I am having the same argument with two people in LE after last weeks Oregon school shooting. One, thinks no civilians should have any firearms at all (that comment really pissed me off) and that no civilians should have "high-capacity" mags or access to "assault rifles". His snarky comment was I have a better chance of shooting myself in my home, then me ever stopping someone from breaking in. I shot back with, "why do you have a fire extinguisher in your home?". He then called me a "paranoid gun-nut". I came back at him with FBI.gov statistics and he asks me if it is alright for civilians to have access to rocket launchers and tanks? Doh! The other LEO doesn't think civilians should be completely disarmed, but that there should be limitations put on people as to what they can have as citizens. Isn't this great? Two LEOs sworn to uphold the Constitution and I am debating with them about our Rights.

 

I also quoted the "shall not be infringed" and he responded with "remind me what well-regulated state militia you belong to."  He asked me "why do I need an "assault rifle" specifically designed to kill people? You should be restricted from owning a weapon whose sole purpose is mass murder."  I responded, with "I am a law-abiding citizen and I want one I can have one". His response, "What a childish answer, 'because I wanna'". How do you argue with that way of thinking?

 

A third LEO jumped into the debate and said we should bring back the assault weapons ban of 1994; that it was Bush's fault for not renewing it. After that ridiculous comment I walked away.....

 

Anyone who asks about what a militia is or doesn't seem to understand that in the context used, it means the body of the population not a small subset or formal organization. I refer them to James Madison's entry 46 in the Federalist Papers. Since he was the primary author of the Constitution, I would expect him to know what he was writing. It is very clear what the second amendment is and what it was made for. I suppose saying "it's a living document" is supposed to negate the fact that there is very explicit and eloquent documentation on this issue made at the time and by the framers describing exactly what they meant.

 

btw, in the context used in the second amendment "well regulated" meant " in working order" there are several well documented cases where militia groups were called upon to use their own weapons during the revolutionary, 1812 and Civil wars. During the revolutionary war many militia groups had old or vastly obsolete weapons and the fledgling US government was unable to arm them properly. They wanted to ensure that future calls for militia volunteers would have working weapons.

 

"Federalist No. 46 (James Madison)

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

 

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.

 

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.

 

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.

 

But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. "

 

And if there is any other doubt, here is the original draft of the second amendment. There was an opinion held by several founders that the federal government should have a strong standing army and that training the entire populace to use weapons would be prohibitively expensive so it was shortened to remove disparaging comments about standing armies and remove anything that may cost them money in order to get consensus and ratification.

 

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."

 

 

Sorry this was so long and lots of quotes, trying to help a fellow NJ guy out. We need all the help we can get here

-Jim

[jeff47 30]

One of my best friends is a cop and he had the same mentality. 20 years on the job and his view has changed. He describes his job as having 2 functions, cleaning up ugly messes and giving people bad news. I wouldn't say he's pro 2A per se but he's no longer a radical anti. You should ask them when was the last time they showed up and saved someone at the last minute from bring killed vs. filling out a report and giving family bad news.

 

Great info guys!

[jackandjill 683]

You cannot argue with a liberal like maintenanceguy said.

 

I am having the same argument with two people in LE after last weeks Oregon school shooting. One, thinks no civilians should have any firearms at all (that comment really pissed me off) and that no civilians should have "high-capacity" mags or access to "assault rifles". His snarky comment was I have a better chance of shooting myself in my home, then me ever stopping someone from breaking in. I shot back with, "why do you have a fire extinguisher in your home?". He then called me a "paranoid gun-nut". I came back at him with FBI.gov statistics and he asks me if it is alright for civilians to have access to rocket launchers and tanks? Doh! The other LEO doesn't think civilians should be completely disarmed, but that there should be limitations put on people as to what they can have as citizens. Isn't this great? Two LEOs sworn to uphold the Constitution and I am debating with them about our Rights.

 

I also quoted the "shall not be infringed" and he responded with "remind me what well-regulated state militia you belong to."  He asked me "why do I need an "assault rifle" specifically designed to kill people? You should be restricted from owning a weapon whose sole purpose is mass murder."  I responded, with "I am a law-abiding citizen and I want one I can have one". His response, "What a childish answer, 'because I wanna'". How do you argue with that way of thinking?

 

A third LEO jumped into the debate and said we should bring back the assault weapons ban of 1994; that it was Bush's fault for not renewing it. After that ridiculous comment I walked away.....

Also ask him if all firearms must be confiscated from civilians, why he as LE would need one ? He should be able to control the bad guys with his baton. We can all go British at that point.

 

Also ask him about how the "War On Drugs" is going on and how much of it the LE got under control after prohibition laws were passed. In fact, ask him which of the "Total Prohibition" laws were successfully implemented and got 100% under control. 

 

Once he agrees that no law can be implemented 100%, then ask him if he would guarantee your life and lives of your loved ones 24/7.  Dont be surprised if he turns up to be a Dem nominee sometime in future.  LE Tough-On-Crime Credentials and Dem attitude, perfect combo for NJ politics. 

 

"Rocket launchers and Tanks"... classic anti argument when they are confronted with real questions. Answer is YES...

[SgtToadette 59]

Anybody refusing to have a discussion is just as bad as soemone who isn't willing to listen.

[Stonecoldchavez 92]

jackandjill-

 

I used the War On Drugs argument. He said that you cannot compare the two because assault rifles are designed to commit mass murder at one time.

 

He feels LE and the military should be able to have these weapons and not civilians.

[voyager9 3,439]

jackandjill-

 

I used the War On Drugs argument. He said that you cannot compare the two because assault rifles are designed to commit mass murder at one time.

 

He feels LE and the military should be able to have these weapons and not civilians.

I'm curious what design feature is built into these rifles that specializes them for mass murder?

[PeteF 1,044]

jackandjill-

 

I used the War On Drugs argument. He said that you cannot compare the two because assault rifles are designed to commit mass murder at one time.

 

He feels LE and the military should be able to have these weapons and not civilians.

Ah I see, so in his opinion mass murder is the balliwick of LE and Military? Tell him to do his job unarmed and then get back to you.

You could also ask him about Chris Dorner and LE response to him.

[SgtToadette 59]

jackandjill-

 

I used the War On Drugs argument. He said that you cannot compare the two because assault rifles are designed to commit mass murder at one time.

 

He feels LE and the military should be able to have these weapons and not civilians.

 

Skip to 5 mins

[PD2K 115]

jackandjill-

 

I used the War On Drugs argument. He said that you cannot compare the two because assault rifles are designed to commit mass murder at one time.

 

He feels LE and the military should be able to have these weapons and not civilians.

 

Explain this to the anti-2A:

 

Straight from the FBI statistics: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

 

Below quoting the article from Hotair: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/04/the-truth-about-gun-deaths-numbers-and-actual-solutions/

 

"Of the actual 8,583 gun murders committed in 2011, 323 were committed with “rifles.” And that’s all rifles, including bolt action, deer hunting rifles and all the rest. The number committed with so called “assault rifles” were a fraction of that. When you ask how dangerous those rifles are, compare that to nearly 1,700 who were stabbed as well as nearly 500 murdered with blunt objects and and more than 700 beaten to death by somebody with their bare hands. Enough said on that topic."

 

Then drop the mic

[Stonecoldchavez 92]

I'm curious what design feature is built into these rifles that specializes them for mass murder?

 

I believe it was the civilian access to "high capacity" magazines.

[jackandjill 683]

Explain this to the anti-2A:

 

Straight from the FBI statistics: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

 

Below quoting the article from Hotair: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/04/the-truth-about-gun-deaths-numbers-and-actual-solutions/

 

"Of the actual 8,583 gun murders committed in 2011, 323 were committed with “rifles.” And that’s all rifles, including bolt action, deer hunting rifles and all the rest. The number committed with so called “assault rifles” were a fraction of that. When you ask how dangerous those rifles are, compare that to nearly 1,700 who were stabbed as well as nearly 500 murdered with blunt objects and and more than 700 beaten to death by somebody with their bare hands. Enough said on that topic."

 

Then drop the mic

Right on.  Wonder why none of the NJ Poli-shit-ians introduce laws banning hands, fists, feet, etc. 

 

2011 FBI Stats

 

Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) - 728,

 

compared to

 

ALL types of rifles - 323. 

[gleninjersey 2,141]

I'm curious what design feature is built into these rifles that specializes them for mass murder?

They are black and scary looking!!

[gleninjersey 2,141]

jackandjill-

 

I used the War On Drugs argument. He said that you cannot compare the two because assault rifles are designed to commit mass murder at one time.

 

He feels LE and the military should be able to have these weapons and not civilians.

Ask him how many people have died from drugs. Has heroin become less expensive and easier to obtain? It is still illegal right? How much annicillary crime is committed to illegal drugs.

 

Ask him if he and his fellow officers has seen more dead bodies from car accidents or guns. One is a privilige and one is a right.

 

Tell him there are currently thousands of fully automatic firearms held by civilians. When was the last time you heard of a fully auto weapon being used in a crime?

[gleninjersey 2,141]

I had a very spirited conversation at a party on Saturday with 2 people. One is a prosecutor in a major city and other is in sales.

 

The gentleman in sales is clueless when it comes to firearms. He confuses fully automatic and semiautomatic. I won't bore you with his part of the conversation.

 

The prosecutor used to be a hunter, has hunting rifles and isn't against guns. He's more than half a Fudd. His biggest concern is stopping people in free states from buying 10 of the same model glocks / guns and then selling them to criminals in NYC. He would like tighter restrictions on people buying multiple guns to stop this. One gun a month etc.

 

I tried explaining that even if that were successful it wouldn't stop people from gun running. What would happen is the criminals would get 10 people a month to buy one gun a month instead of one person buying 10 guns at a time. He doesn't think that would happen. I respectfully disagreed. He thinks the criminlas are too disorganized & lazy to do that. I pretty much laughed at that.

 

He looks at it from the standpoint of reducing the guns available to criminals. I countered with illegal drugs. Totally different he says. I explained even if all guns were magically banned / confiscated there would still be a black market for guns. They would come in with the illegal drugs. He countered with he just wants to make it more difficult for criminals to get guns. I counterd with they are criminals, they don't care about laws, they'll still get guns.....

 

I get where he's coming from. It would be great if criminals obeyed the law. But they don't. Make what ever laws you want but don't restrict legal gun owners rights.

 

He said he doesn't believe the antis "want your guns" and doesn't think the Suoreme Court would reverse itself. Then why does Obama keep bringing up Australia that pretty much confiscated civilians guns? I explained the Supreme Court has reversed itself several times and can be swayed by public opinion.

 

At tbe end of evening we parted on good terms and talked about other things unrelated to guns.

 

Never back down in discussions like this, keep your cool and if it's obvious the other side isn't really interested in a discussion don't bother frustrating yourself.

[gleninjersey 2,141]

Good article I liked about one way to help stop / reduce school shootings.

 

http://markmanson.net/school-shootings

[Newtonian 453]

Since I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, I would appreciate some suggestions in responding to someone who quoted Paul Waldman (?): "we should really ask every other country on earth how they all eliminated mental illness, since that is the source of all gun massacres."

 

He is being sarcastic because I stated that mental illness is often the issue and I would appreciate the gov addressing that before they attack my Const. Rights.

 

Thanks guys.

He has a very valid point. But the response is something he'll definitely shrug off.

 

The US used to be a free country with free people. Not perfect but the best on earth. We gun folks like guns the way car fruitcakes like cars and the way climbing freaks spend $10,000 to get frostbite or croak at 30,000 feet or fall to their deaths at much lower altitudes. Our passion -- and right -- should not be predicated on what others do. Someone who restores and collects '55 Chevys should not be judged or limited on the basis of the asshole who ran over three people on purpose in Newark. 

 

Since getting back into this hobby the crime rate on my block has not risen one iota due to my accumulation of firearms and ammo.

 

In other words those affected by gun control and those who commit crimes are not the same.

 

BTW, the mental health system in this country sucks big time.

[jackandjill 683]

@glenn, you should ask the prosecutor why we have id and limits on psuedoephidrin, if not for "lazy" "disorganized" people from procuring it across multiple pharmacies.

 

Is he doesn't believe antis want to take rights away, then ask him where / when will they stop. They want

 

* only "assault" weapons gone?

* all semi auto ?

* only handguns or semi rifles too ?

* where is the limit for "safe" magazine capacity ? 30, 15, 10, 7, 1 or zero ?

 

Love those conversations where every anti starts it by saying they love constitution and they are NOT after anybody rights or firearms.

[tattooo 220]

@glenn, you should ask the prosecutor why we have id and limits on psuedoephidrin, if not for "lazy" "disorganized" people from procuring it across multiple pharmacies.

 

Is he doesn't believe antis want to take rights away, then ask him where / when will they stop. They want

 

* only "assault" weapons gone?

* all semi auto ?

* only handguns or semi rifles too ?

* where is the limit for "safe" magazine capacity ? 30, 15, 10, 7, 1 or zero ?

 

Love those conversations where every anti starts it by saying they love constitution and they are NOT after anybody rights or firearms.

You hit that square on the head !!