What we SHOULD say


PDA






UnintendedConsequences
August 14, 2006, 04:27 PM
The biggest mistake we make is failing to take the moral high ground on our issues such as Natural Rights and the Second Amendment 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, as criminals will always get guns. That is FLAWED reasoning, as the implication here is that if you COULD succeed, it should 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 and you want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed and perfect prey. Sorry, that is totally unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry a firearm.”

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 we compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15/M1A. 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…wa wa wa wa wa (a la adults in Peanuts cartoons). This is FLAWED as you have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban your firearms with no sporting use. 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 purposes than firearms. To be precise, a high capacity military pattern rifle, shotgun or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself, my loved ones, my freedoms, my liberty and my Natural Rights, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom, liberty and Natural Rights is that they’re good practice for when they need to be protected from the overreaching tyranny of our government officials.”

They say if we pass this CCW law or that Castile Doctrine, it will be like the Wild West, with shoot-outs all the time for fender benders, in bars, people will kill just to kill without any reason and they will actively seek out confrontation since they don’t have to run away from trouble, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it. Think of the children…”
We say studies have shown blah blah blah. This is FLAWED because you have implied that if studies showed CCW laws or Castile Doctrine equaled more heat of passion shootings or killings because someone sought out a fight rather than leave the trouble area, the CCW and justified actions with the doctrine should be illegal.
WE SHOULD SAY: “Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that’s not important. What are important are our freedom, liberty and Natural Rights. If saving lives is more important than 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? Oh, by the way, the Supreme Court has ruled more than once that law enforcement has no legal obligation to respond to your emergency call, rather that they are charged with the general safety of a community. You should remember that when you say that one should call the police instead to protect yourself rather than defending yourself with a firearm.”

They say they don’t see what the big deal is about a five-day waiting period or a limit on how many guns per month someone can purchase.
We say it doesn’t do any good as criminals don’t wait five days or restrict their purchases to a fixed number per month and it is a waste of resources to enforce it. The FLAW is you have implied that if waiting periods or a purchase limit DID reduce crime the measures would be good ideas.
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 being ruined such as the one of Richard Jewel? And the fact that this law applies to people who ALREADY own firearms tells me that it’s not about crime prevention, it’s about harassment and controlling someone. 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, M-16s/M-4s, M60s, M203 grenade launchers, etc. 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 weaponry, as were the issued weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each issued muskets, but some individuals and private companies owned their own field pieces as part of the civilian militia and even had exploding shells. In 2006, soldiers are issued M-16s, M-4s, M249s, grenade launchers and more, but not howitzers and atomic bombs though artillery, mines, grenades and other ordinance are legally owned by private individuals right now. According to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand operated and used fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing, web presses or electricity, let alone television, radio, computers, the internet and satellite transmission.”

They say we require licenses for driving and registrations for motor vehicles, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these weapons of mass destruction.
We generally say nothing, usually, and just sit there looking stupid.
WE SHOULD SAY: “You know, operating a motor vehicle on tax funded public roadways is a privilege, where the right to travel freely and the right to defend oneself through the ownership and use of firearms are both Natural Rights which existed before our Constitution. But let’s put that aside for a moment. It’s interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the United States you can AT ANY AGE go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars or truck so 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, depending on the state, between 14 and 18. This license is good in all 50 states. NO waiting periods, no background checks, nothing but a basic driving test, written test and vision test. If we treated firearms like cars, a teenager could go into any state and legally buy handguns, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at a certain age he could get a state license good for anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property. However, as driving a motor vehicle on public property is a privilege and firearms ownership is a Natural Right, the former requires a government issued permit while the former must never require government sanction.”

They say the government will never confiscate your deer rifle or turkey/duck shotgun.
We generally act all paranoid and rant away at them.
WE SHOULD SAY: “In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina we saw rather clearly that our government did and will confiscate firearms from the law abiding while rendering them easy prey for criminals, many of which the government itself set free rather than keep them locked up. Additionally, even the government’s own employees, police officers in fact, abandoned their posts and took part in the looting rather than carry out their sworn duty to uphold the law and the Constitution.”

And finally, a comment that is useful with most all anti-gun, anti-freedom, anti-liberty, anti-Natural Rights zealots:
YOU SAY: “You know I’m amazed at how little you care about your children and grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything.”
They say huh?
YOU SAY: “Well, passing this new gun control law won’t have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years neither George Bush nor Ted Kennedy is going to open up interment 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 or her? If that does happen, do you REALLY want your children or grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom, liberty and Natural Rights? And do you really want them to have been stripped of it BY YOU?

If you enjoyed reading about "What we SHOULD say" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Telperion
August 14, 2006, 04:39 PM
Don't you think you should credit John Ross, seeing as how he wrote that? :scrutiny:

the naked prophet
August 14, 2006, 04:48 PM
Indeed. (http://www.john-ross.net/mistakes.htm)

Phetro
August 14, 2006, 04:55 PM
Very good! I think I've actually seen this before somewhere--I can't remember who if anyone was credited. However, THIS glaring flaw:

WE SHOULD SAY: “You know, operating a motor vehicle on tax funded public roadways is a privilege

cannot be allowed to stand. We pay for the roads, and the Ninth Amendment protects the rights--like the right to travel however you wish--that aren't named in the other Amendments. We have EVERY right to drive. The government has ignored the Ninth Amendment, and has also managed to dupe quite a few people into forgetting it. Don't forget it!

vynx
August 14, 2006, 05:05 PM
Just finished re-reading that great novel last week.

Looks like someone else enjoyed it also.

Does no harm to remind ourselves.

UnintendedConsequences
August 14, 2006, 05:08 PM
I had the information given to me, handwritten, from a friend. I was not aware where it came from. However, please note that I did not take credit for it. If it is from John Ross, so be it.

Second, the issue of tax funded roadways and travel is not firearms related so I won't get into that on this thread. It is a topic for a separate thread.

My goal was simply to share information to get people to think about what they say in response to those who wish to deny us our Natural Rights.

ServiceSoon
August 14, 2006, 08:11 PM
My goal was simply to share information to get people to think about what they say in response to those who wish to deny us our Natural Rights.

and we thank you for that!

MudPuppy
August 14, 2006, 11:48 PM
That is pretty much what I say.

I like to add that only the police and military should own guns, with the civilians beging peaceable and disarmed. You know, like the NAZI Gestapo and the Waffen SS with their firearms and the Jews disarmed...because we know that was such a wonderful idea. Then I refrain from popping them in the snout...but only barely.

If you enjoyed reading about "What we SHOULD say" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!