My debate with an Anti.


PDA






DerringerUser
October 17, 2006, 01:19 AM
For the record, I am "Shooterandproud", and the Anti is "Yolanda". She made the first post.

I think you’re right; it is more serious than just a hobby. It is ingrained in the American culture from its inception. America has an obsession with guns. Guns and violence appear in every form of art and entertainment; it is engrained in the culture as a symbol of power, freedom and even sensuality. Every boy grows up learning violence from TV and games, where violence is glorified. Problems are always solved with violence. Charlton Heston said that the reason Americans need there guns is because America was founded in violence. The old Wild West movies depict the beginning of a gun-ho America where everything is settled with the gun. Today we have an America that is equally as gun-ho but at an international scale with MOABS, cluster bombs, Tomahawk missiles, napalm bombs and nuclear weapons. “I love napalm in the morning” for example, is every American’s favourite movie line.


Do not attempt to associate the gun with violence. A gun is a life saving tool in the hands of a great citizen, and in the hands of a criminal, its deadly. Guns have no effect on crime, as statistics have shown. Violence does. Why do you view the gun different than any other tool, such as a screwdriver, or a hammer? Airplanes are much more dangerous, and have the possibility to do much more harm than guns, so why arent you associating airplanes with violence?

A gun is an inaminate object. There is a difference between a gun and a bomb. A bomb wipes out everyone in a set area, and you cannot control who dies. With a gun, you know excatlcy who you are shooting, and you cannot kill more than 1 or 2 people with 1 bullet. I really dont understand why Anti-gun zealots dont go after banning cars, or airplanes, or other dangerous machines.

You are one of the people the Brady Campaign has brainwashed. You associate guns with "bad" or "violence" when they are far from it. A gun is a tool, and everyone should learn how to use that tool safely. It is also our freedom.

Remember the holocaust? Imagine what would've happened if all of the jews had guns. There probably wouldn't have been as many jews tortured and killed, and a lot of germans probably would've had their head blown off, which is good. I also dont see why Anti-gun zealots arent trying to clamp down on crime instead of guns.

Hi Shootandproud,

Judging by you choice of name and attire, you are obviously obsessed with things that shoot and kill. You say that these are just tools, such as a screwdriver, and that guns and violence are not related. You say that I’ve been brainwashed yet your arguments come straight from the pro gun lobbyists. The love for guns and military equipment is inherently human. I can understand how an F15 or an Apache helicopter can be seductive, especially to a young mind. Men have a need to be in control with the power to defend themselves, and guns make all men equal. It gives man the ability to feel secure. Without a gun a man feels naked, defenceless, and insecure. My opinion is that men with guns are cowards, and the obsession with guns is perverse.

If you need to defend yourself use a pepper-spray. Very effective and doesn’t kill anyone.



Judging by you choice of name and attire, you are obviously obsessed with things that shoot and kill.

Obviously not. Because of your name and picture, i can tell that you are a fat, obsessed with watermelons, and a liberal soccer mom. You cant make that kind of judgement with your picture. Just reading your first sentance i can already tell that you are not qualified for this debate.

You say that these are just tools, such as a screwdriver, and that guns and violence are not related.

You are not putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that you're generalizing guns as "bad" or "violent" when the majority are far from it.

You say that I’ve been brainwashed yet your arguments come straight from the pro gun lobbyists.

Thats also a bad judgement and a baseless claim. All of your statements are ignorant and lack any bases or facts.

Without a gun a man feels naked, defenceless, and insecure.

Another baseless judgement. I doubt you are a man, and even if you were, you cant generalize like that.

My opinion is that men with guns are cowards, and the obsession with guns is perverse.

Another baseless claim. Boy, i could go on all day. An obsession with a gun is like an obsession with golf, or basketball. Were usually obsessed with guns because they are fun, not for self defense. Self defense is just another use for a gun, but an obsession with guns is usually an obsession with marksmanship and projectiles, not killing.


Thoughts, comments? What should i fix? I need some constructive critisizm to help me for my next debate (dont go crazy now).

And just a little backround info, she has a watermelon as her Avatar, and i have an F22 fighter.

If you enjoyed reading about "My debate with an Anti." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Zundfolge
October 17, 2006, 01:25 AM
Years ago Oleg dropped some wisdom on me when I was arguing with some stupid antis.

Don't try to wrestle with a pig, you'll only get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

Or to quote the computer in war games;
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?



"yolanda" is beyond hope.

DerringerUser
October 17, 2006, 01:32 AM
I already realized that. My only goal was not to make me look like an idiot, as there were about 5 people in the debate, this is just the worst anti out there.

quatin
October 17, 2006, 01:32 AM
really shouldn't push people's buttons. especially if you are trying to make an honest debate out of something. Calling people's arguments ignorant and baseless doesn't offer much content for debate. Yes, she may have provoked you, but never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

lionking
October 17, 2006, 01:32 AM
well she is right about the fact that a Apache helicopter is seductive,would love to get a ride in one!



my advice is just stay polite,if you say something to her that makes sense she will probably think about it after the debate,not wanting to loose the debate.

DerringerUser
October 17, 2006, 01:35 AM
well she is right about the fact that a Apache helicopter is seductive,would love to get a ride in one!


my advice is just stay polite,if you say something to her that makes sense she will probably think about it after the debate,not wanting to loose the debate.

Thanks for the input, although you have to admit she was trying to put words in my mouth, and her claims were somewhat baseless.

lionking
October 17, 2006, 01:39 AM
notice that I edited my response but you captured it as a quote.She didnt go off into a tantrum like some other antis have..... but I just had to think about what I typed again and decided calling her somewhat intelligent was not proper.

To single out America as being the only country raised on violence is wrong.Think about places like Somalia,thats a dangerous place.And ah Europe,the so called civilized part of the world.Though there has been more violence and wide spread death in Europe through the ages than most elsewhere.

crazed_ss
October 17, 2006, 01:44 AM
When I argue with antis, i try to minimize my use of analogies. IMO, a gun is not a tool. A hammer is a tool, a screwdriver is a tool, a multimeter is a tool. I think guns are weapons.. like a sword, spear, crossbow etc. A weapon's primary purpose is to hurt/kill stuff. At first you mention that a gun can be used to stop an attacker.. and then you start talking about how a gun is simply a tool. I'd pick one argument and go with that.

When people ask me why I want guns, I tell them because guns are extremely effective weapons. Also, they're good for punching holes in paper.. my primary purpose for owning guns is for defense though.

DerringerUser
October 17, 2006, 01:47 AM
notice that I edited my response but you captured it as a quote.She didnt go off into a tantrum like some other antis have..... but I just had to think about what I typed again and decided calling her somewhat intelligent was not proper.

To single out America as being the only country raised on violence is wrong.Think about places like Somalia,thats a dangerous place.And ah Europe,the so called civilized part of the world.Though there has been more violence and wide spread death in Europe through the ages than most elsewhere.



Hey, you're entitled to your own opinion. If you think she's intelligent, then thats your opinion. Ill edit my post on your request though.


When I argue with antis, i try to minimize my use of analogies. IMO, a gun is not a tool. A hammer is a tool, a screwdriver is a tool, a multimeter is a tool. I think guns are weapons.. like a sword, spear, crossbow etc. A weapon's primary purpose is to hurt/kill stuff. At first you mention that a gun can be used to stop an attacker.. and then you start talking about how a gun is simply a tool. I'd pick one argument and go with that.

When people ask me why I want guns, I tell them because guns are extremely effective weapons. Also, they're good for punching holes in paper.. my primary purpose for owning guns is for defense though.

I see. But, most of the people i know use guns for target practice or hunting, but thats just me.

I also consider weapons to be tools, but you're right, i think it would be a good idea to separate weapons from tools.

ProguninTN
October 17, 2006, 01:51 AM
I have scenarios for when pepper spray is not effective/appropriate.
Pepper spray has a limited effective range. An attacker must be within close proximity in order for it to work. If your attacker has a weapon with long range capablities, (gun, knife (they can be thrown) or any other object that can be thrown, pepper spray may not work.

Pepper spray will not stop a charging assailant.

Pepper spray can have blow back if sprayed into wind. Guns don't have that problem.

If an attacker with a knife or blunt object is sprayed while in close proximity, he can still flail wildly despite impaired vision.

I hope this is helpful.

lionking
October 17, 2006, 01:56 AM
nope,calling her intelligent was wrong of me which is why I took that out.I said that because at least she didnt start using 4 letter words every 2 seconds which I saw in other debates posted.

she used some of the old cliches like a gun being a extension of a mans pride if you know what I mean,whatever.The fact that she singled out America for being prone to violence both as the nation and individuals shows me she is biased and she will stay that way till one day maybe a light will go off in her head and goes "ding"!...which probably when that happens will be because someone threatened her with a robbery or worse.

Axman
October 17, 2006, 03:09 AM
I am still inclined to believe that a gun is a tool. Generally it's a tool to kill and a tool for amusement. One gun owner uses the tool to hunt and kill a deer (or any other animal you wish to insert) for food. Another gun owner will use the tool to defend himself by killing an attacker. The next gun owner might use it to murder someone. The final gun owner just likes to relieve stress by putting holes in paper.

A galvanized pipe is also a tool to direct water and other various liquids from the source to the destination. Some people use the tool for it's intended purpose, to channel water. Another user will beat someone to death with the pipe. Along with the anti-gun, protester's horse!

A bow and arrow is also a tool for killing. Fact is most people use them for target shooting. Some use them for hunting. Others, maybe murder!

There is a saying that the clothes make the man. But the weapon does not make the cold blooded killer.

Standing Wolf
October 17, 2006, 09:19 AM
Problems are always solved with violence.

I believe you'd have more success teaching a cat to whistle than reasoning with someone who believes such nonsense.

Zen21Tao
October 17, 2006, 11:53 AM
Rather than be on the defensive trying to convince libs why guns shouldn't be banned I think it is more effective to put them on the defensive by making them try to defend why the negetive effects that come from banning guns should be forced on the American people.

To do this, look up the stats for the number of gun uses for self defense and the number of guns used in crime. I can't remember the exact numbers but I know the former is higher. Point these figures out to her and let her know that by banning guns more people are made defenseless against attackers than saved from gun crimes. Then ask her why she thinks so little of human life that she would strip innocent people of their only means of self-defense and then throw them helplessly to the wolves.*

* Any rebutal she tries to make saying that it is caring for human life that makes her want to ban guns will fail since there are for more lives saved by guns than lost to guns.

Steve499
October 17, 2006, 12:57 PM
Any discussion like this invariably includes, sooner or later, the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The antis say it refers to the national guard while the pros say (correctly) it is just what it says, the people.

Rather than get into court precedent, etc., where one can be bogged down by citing various decisions made by various courts, the discussion should be steered toward the "rights" aspect of the bill of rights instead of the individual amendments.

Do all humans have basic rights regardless of what political system they happen to find themselves or does their government properly decide what rights the citizens enjoy? Almost anyone you ask that question will swiftly say there are basic human rights all humanity is born with. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is written into our founding documents as those rights we are given by our creator. If a government says, and does so legally by it's own standard, that a group of people, Jews for example, have no right to any of those, do the rights in fact not exist for that group or is that group being deprived of natural rights? Legality,as defined by the government through it's subordinate branches,can be anything the government wants to say it is. The basic right to be able to defend ones self exists regardless of what the government says on the subject. The right of self defense pre-exists any form of government. Any government which says we have no right to defend ourselves or prevents us from legally having the means to do so does not eliminate the right, it merely deprives us of a right humanity has always had and always will have.

This idea about not really needing the 2nd amendment to justify owning firearms was in a thread I read either here or on TFL recently. The author did a much better job explaining it than I have, and If I can find it I'll post a link.

I have a right to own a firearm regardless of what the government decides, since I have a right to defend myself and my family. The government may criminalize me for it but they do so unjustly and the right exists nonetheless. Ask those who say the government can justly deprive us of our basic rights to self defense if that same government at some point says the citizenry cannot freely speak, is that also just or does the government become opressive only at that point?

Steve

JJpdxpinkpistols
October 17, 2006, 05:35 PM
I think the first thing you want to avoid is calling someone “brainwashed,” regardless of their mental abilities.

The second thing you should watch out for is the term “baseless”. An opinion is inherently baseless, so calling it such is calling the kettle…well, you get the idea. Facts can be baseless, but not opinions.

The third thing I would suggest would be sticking to facts OR theory. Don’t try to tackle both. If you start throwing out facts and figures, be prepared for their use of facts and figures. That means reading through and isolating the failures in methodology in the studies that they cite. That means reading the studies produced by the other side. I could think of many better things to do with my day. Like deworming a football stadium full of dogs.

If you can stick to theory, ask them first if they have a right to be safe? If so, do they have a right to be only ½ safe? Maybe 1/3 safe? Do they believe that people have an inherent right to safety for themselves and their families, then ask them if they would really, truly trust the lives of their children to a can of seasoning. Would they be willing to bet the lives of their own kids to the response of a police officer that has to DRIVE to them.

In some cases, you will find an anti that is not able to EVER change. Example: My mother is a Quaker. She has decided that for HER, she would rather travel the road of Pacifism. In the events above, she would consign her charges to her predetermined fate. I have rejected that concept, and as such, we just steer away from that conversation. Its her belief, just as mine is the opposite. Keep in mind that you have a RIGHT of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No one says you have to exercise that right.

Oh, and Oleg is right.

Nicky Santoro
October 17, 2006, 05:39 PM
Not worth the band width. Kind of like explaining King Lear to a dog. It looks at you intently, but at the end goes "woof". It's a dog. That's what they do. Same with an anti.

Nitrogen
October 17, 2006, 05:48 PM
There is no winning these types of debates.

The best you can do is hope to make the other person appreciate your point of view. You do that by appreciating theirs; understanding and appreciating their fears, and then speaking to how their fears can be handled.

It's basically a sales job. And yes, i'm in sales.

Ieyasu
October 18, 2006, 12:53 AM
DerringerUser,

Some posters are advising you that it's a waste of time arguing with an anti. However, given that you are arguing with somebody on a public message board, it may not be a waste of time assuming there are lurkers or ambivialent posters around.

Anyways, here's what I would have said in response to some of Yolanda's comments...

Every boy grows up learning violence from TV and games, where violence is glorified.
There is a difference between "learning violence" and being exposed to violence.

Japan's populace, as well, is exposed to an incredibly high-dosage of violence. One can see grown men on commuter trains reading comic books containing explicit rape scenes. Yet Japan has incredibly low rates of assault.The violence equation is far more complex than such shallow observations.
Problems are always solved with violence.
Simply not true.

Although the statistics referred to in this link are for murder only, the patterns for violent assaults are similar -- http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html#table1 America's violence problem is not spread uniformly.
The old Wild West movies depict the beginning of a gun-ho America where everything is settled with the gun.
Wow, drawing historical conclusions from historical nonsense? Most western towns had low rates of violence. The exceptions almost always being among mutual combatants. Women could walk virtually anywhere unmolested.

Would you guess from watching John Wayne movies that roughly 1/3 of the cowboys (from some estimates) were either black or hispanic?
"I love napalm in the morning” for example, is every American’s favourite movie line.
You sure like to make sweeping generalities that simply aren't true.
Judging by you choice of name and attire, you are obviously obsessed with things that shoot and kill.
Typical.. If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

I chose my moniker because many people hold incorrect stereotypes regarding gun owners.You serve as a good example. The shooter and proud of it, doesn't refer to killing. Target shooting is far less violent of an activity than say football. The fighter plane, to me is a symbol of strength and defender of freedom. It's not an obsession.
You say that these are just tools, such as a screwdriver, and that guns and violence are not related.
They can be related, in the same way learning a martial art can be related to violence. There are good (or constructive) and bad forms of violence.
You say that I’ve been brainwashed yet your arguments come straight from the pro gun lobbyists.
Again, let's see a substantive rebuttal, rather than pejorative comments.
My opinion is that men with guns are cowards, and the obsession with guns is perverse.
Same old theme. Attack or demean what you disagree with. Most aren't obsessed. If I have a fire extingisher, fire insurance, car insurance, etc., that doesn't make me paranoid or a coward. I consider it prudence and preparation. Learning how to use guns responsibly is also prudent. Your capacity for reasoning appears to be rather limited and narrow-minded.

I understand why some people don't like guns and why they might be philosophically opposed to them, but to call gunowners "cowards" or "obsessed" merely demonstrates a shallow-mind and/or one unwilling to understand a viewpoint different from one's own.

SoCalShooter
October 18, 2006, 01:05 AM
My advice is to be polite and on the attack, I suggest however that name calling or other slander is a waste of time. Keep your cool, use facts and personal experience to persuade them. Some are to ignorant to be persuaded, I agree with most of your argument other than the (for lack of better term) making fun of her or his argument. Remember this is the internet and people say a lot of things they know nothing about. The problem with most anti gun people is that they never try to see the argument from BOTH sides they see it from their side and their side only, cant argue, wont argue with someone who is not going to be open minded to any subject up for debate. I dont waste my time with a lot of anti's anymore they dont want to be enlightened they dont want you to have guns it gives them power over you if you dont have guns.

Nice job otherwise bud.

********************************
Comment on your next post:
"We do it on behalf of those that are addicted, for their health and for the health of the nation" same left wing bs they always think they know what is best for everyone else. Not all liberals of course I have met some very pro gun liberals in my travels and on this forum, its the ignorant extreme ones. I can only term most of those fallacious arguments that they replied to you with as ignorant.

DerringerUser
October 18, 2006, 01:05 AM
And this is what she posted after that:

Ye right. Ok, shooterandproud, I can see I'm not gonna convince you. The allure of guns have you totaly seduced. Besides you give me nothing to respond to. Lastly, I will just say: don't get angry at those that are anti-gun or anti-tobacco. We do it on behalf of those that are addicted, for their health and for the health of the nation.


And this is what i wrote (went a little crazy here, couldnt help myself):

You are beyond hope. I could be lobbing personal attacks at you, because of the ignorance of your post, but im gonna hold back.

How the heck are guns addictive? Tell me when you can provide some legitimate study that says guns contain nicotine, and then i will believe you. Tobacco has nothing to do with guns. Being the liberatarian i am, i do disagree with the tobacco part, but im not going to get into that. I have given you plenty to respond to, you are just failing to respond.

Even some anti-gunners couldnt help but chuckle at some of your posts. You do not provide sufficiant arguments to counter mine, all you provide is "your addicted to guns", and then you back out. If you dont like our constitution, then leave the US (if you live here). We have a right to keep and bear arms. You dont have to buy a gun, but it doesnt concern you if we do.

What the heck to guns have to do with being "seduced" or "allured". Im sorry, but even though you wish you had some reason to disregard my arguments, you dont, and you're going to have to face the music sooner or later, without zingers like "the allure of guns". Im sorry, but Guns dont "allure" or "seduce" you. Its impossible. You can be addicted or allured to alchohal, sex, drugs, whatever. But im not doing drugs, therefore there is no possible way that im "allured". I dont think you are allured, addicted, or seduced to overly puritanical safety, i just think you are overly ignorant. But "allured" or "seduced" is completely absurd.

I would want to have a real debate with you if you were really debating this issue and had your facts straight, but right now you are running completely on emotion. Maybe something happened when you were a kid, I don't know, but its not my buisness. But you shouldnt let your emotions clout your judgement on these issues.

Pilgrim
October 18, 2006, 02:15 AM
I can understand how an F15 or an Apache helicopter can be seductive, especially to a young mind. Men have a need to be in control with the power to defend themselves, and guns make all men equal. It gives man the ability to feel secure. Without a gun a man feels naked, defenceless, and insecure. My opinion is that men with guns are cowards, and the obsession with guns is perverse.

If you need to defend yourself use a pepper-spray. Very effective and doesn’t kill anyone.
She sure pushed my buttons. I was seduced by the A4 Skyhawk and the A7E Corsair II. I was also seduced by cop cars. They all carried guns. The aircraft had big guns, 20mm guns.

I wonder if Yolanda has seen someone get pepper sprayed and keep on fighting. It is quite a show.

Pilgrim

Veprman
October 18, 2006, 12:35 PM
Tell her yes im a coward. I am afraid to fight one or more poeple who I know for a fact can beat the crap out of me.

Axman
October 18, 2006, 01:53 PM
men with guns are cowards

No, men with guns are survivors!

progunner1957
October 18, 2006, 02:00 PM
Pepper spray is a good thing to carry, but it is NOT a 100% stopper 100% of the time.

I carry pepper spray, which is backed up by either a Glock 21, 30 or a 1911.

My tombstone will not say, "He died that a predatory thug might live."

Kentak
October 18, 2006, 02:01 PM
We do it on behalf of those that are addicted, for their health and for the health of the nation.

Spoken like a true socialist.

DoubleTapDrew
October 18, 2006, 02:12 PM
Lastly, I will just say: don't get angry at those that are anti-gun or anti-tobacco. We do it on behalf of those that are addicted, for their health and for the health of the nation.
That's just scary. "We know better than you. It's for your own good. Get on the train, Für Ihr eigenes gutes"
Some people are too far gone to argue with.

1911Tuner
October 18, 2006, 02:26 PM
Another "Never" that applies to pigs is:

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time, and it annoys the pig."

:cool:

Gordon Fink
October 18, 2006, 02:58 PM
DerringerUser, you lost the debate as soon as you insulted her, which you managed to do in your very first post.

~G. Fink

Jorg Nysgerrig
October 18, 2006, 04:00 PM
Having read the entire thread (http://www.4forums.com/political/showthread.php?t=6567) DerringerUser was posting in, I can't help but shake my head. He basically got smacked around, particularly by using the "guns save lives!" argument which was met with "If guns weren't needed to save lives, would you be against gun control?" line. Quick, backpedal to the "rights" argument! He need to pick a line of reasoning and stick to it.

The worst part was where he links back to The High Road, gloating about posting the conversation here. Then again, posting comments from THR over on the other board to rile-up the gun control crowd (http://www.4forums.com/political/showthread.php?t=8935) isn't exactly taking the high road.

I really dont understand why Anti-gun zealots dont go after banning cars, or airplanes, or other dangerous machines.
Statements like this don't win arguments or make much sense. It's about perceived utility. Yes, many people die from car accidents. However, the perceived utility of cars greatly outweighs the risks. Those who wish to ban guns don't see the perceived utility to outweigh the risks.

Cosmoline
October 18, 2006, 04:07 PM
Tell her yes im a coward. I am afraid to fight one or more poeple who I know for a fact can beat the crap out of me.

I'm a proud coward. But I've run into many, many antis--esp. from overseas--who regard it as a man's duty to get in punchups over women, insults or just because they're drunk out of their minds. They dislike firearms because they view them as "cheating" or "cowardly." The same idiots will wax poetic about katanas, though. They're like children on a playground.

I've been arguing with these people since the grand old days of the Michael Moore Message Board. I don't have much use for arguing statistics or engaging in some cost vs. benefits analysis. As others pointed out, these guys will ALWAYS view the cost of firearms as outweighing the benefits. And indeed most of them come from states and nations where the majority does feel that civilian owned firearms have no useful place in the modern world. The policy arguments throwing statistics and cost/benefit analyses back and forth have already taken place where they are, and the firearms lost.

These days my arguments tend to run to the core of the matter, which has nothing to do with the policy debate. We're talkign about the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, not about the merits of owning firearms. It's a natural right, and among other things it means that all the statistics and utilitarian analysis are meaningless. It doesn't even have to do with wether they think firearms are good or bad. The core question is whether the state has the right to strip you of deadly weapons whenever it feels the desire to do so. To strip you of the means to defend yourself beyond a playground punch-up level, as the British government has been doing for decades now.

In a thousand arguments on dozens of boards, I've found it comes down to the question of how you view the individual's relationship with the state. It actually has very little to do with firearms. The question is whether you are SUBJECTS of the state, beholden to the state for your day-to-day existence, or CITIZENS who operate within a state but who still retain core rights against state intereference. You will find that the antis reject the notion of natural rights, and that they view rights as transitory products of temporary agreements among elected representatives. The state giveth, the state taketh away. From that point of view, it makes perfect sense that the majority of representatives can engage in a cost-benefit analysis and decide to round up all the firearms.

G36-UK
October 18, 2006, 05:28 PM
I've seen far too many arguments that center around "need".

"You don't NEED assault weapons"
"You don't NEED handguns"

It's almost as stupid as the "It's for the chiiilllldreeeen" argument.

Yes, there may be no need, but a far more valid point may be that there is absolutely no need for the kind of laws that anti-gun groups demand.

Axman
October 18, 2006, 06:13 PM
"You don't NEED assault weapons"
"You don't NEED handguns"

You don't need a Big Mac with fries for lunch either but if one wishes to eat it then by all means chow down!

Lemon328i
October 18, 2006, 06:30 PM
As many anti's are women and liberal, I sometimes use the topic of abortion to illustrate the illogic of gun control.

No one "needs" to have an abortion, it is a choice. If the Government has no right to tell you what to do with your body, what gives you the right to decide who can own firearms? It should be a personal choice. They often go on with firearms might harm them, to which I counter that the child they terminate could have been the one to cure cancer or AIDS. Hypotheticals do not negate the right to choose.

If owning guns is cowardly and not owning one is courageous, then
killing a fetus is cowardly for it takes courage to raise a child (especially if single).

I personally support a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, but I'll be damned if I let one of them trample on my rights when I support their's.

This tactic makes those who can actually think consider a different angle to firearms, while it drives the ultra-liberal (who can't actually think) into a seething frenzy! Fun, fun fun!

If you enjoyed reading about "My debate with an Anti." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!