[AnklePocket]

Hope I'm not getting out of control, but I'd like to really perfect a short, sweet RKBA defense that most (in a highly "anti" area) can relate to without further alienating anyone. How's this:

"Clearly, we all have the same concerns. Guns aren't for everyone, but many people see the right to protect themselves and their families as their number one civil right.
Gun restriction does not prevent crime. Great law enforcement supported by great politicians will."

[lapidator]

The effect on (violent) crime by "great" law enforcement is negligible compaired to the cumulative effect of single persons fighting back.

When talking to LEOs I like to pose the question this way. "As a police officer, do you carry a fire extinguisher in your cruiser? (obviously the answer is yes) Why, you are not a fire-fighter?"

lapidator

[Graystar]

Your argument assumes that the right to carry a gun exist. That's your major problem. That's like saying "God exists" to an atheist. It means nothing. A conceptual defense will never be any good. Also, there are several instances where we support government restrictions on our rights. For example, I don't think anyone here will argue with the wisdom of restricting violent felons from having guns. At one point in history you didn't need a license to drive. However, because of the lack of rules and regulations, driving became dangerous and the government had to step in. So *your* freedom to just get in a car and go has been restricted in order to protect *others'* right not to be road kill. This is the nature of law. We pass laws to protect rights (well.. that's the ideal anyways.)

With cars, there was an obvious and pressing need to do something about rising number of accidents. With guns, however, the "solution" is not linked so clearly with the problem of gun related crime, and this is where we have our chance.

All states but one have rejected the idea of a right to carry firearms for personal defense. So you actually have two tasks. First, you must demonstrate the viability of the relationship between self-defense (a clearly accepted right) and firearms. The governments own statistics are good enough to prove this point, as they show that self-defense with a firearm is the most effective way to avoid injury (even more affective that complying with an offender.) Demonstrating this will show that firearms enjoy the same close relationship with self-defense as, say, a free press has with freedom of expression. You can't really have one without the other. This would prove that defense with a firearm is a right.

Second, you have to demonstate that restrictions on this right have *not* acted in the best public interest. Just like driving, you can't protect one right to the vast detriment of another. If 100 people die so that 10 can defend themselves, the protection of the right is questionable. However, once again there is ample evidence to prove this is not the case. Stats easily show that extremely few gun owners commit crimes with their guns. Also, stats from other countries show that not only does banning guns not eliminate gun related crime, but it has very little effect on it.

There are people here that disagree with this. They think that our rights are absolute and that there can be no restrictions and that we shouldn't have to do yadda yadda yadda... That's a nice thought, and when they become federal judges I'm sure things will change. Until then, however, you have to work within the system as it exist. You're going to have to prove what you are claiming.

[Leatherneck]

All states but one have rejected the idea of a right to carry firearms for personal defense.
Untrue as stated. Many states in addition to Vermont recognize--both in writing and in practice--the individual's right to KBA; the others simply recognize it as a right subject to limitations and even revocation by a more powerful entity than the individual (the state). Quibble if you will about whether a-right-that-can-be-limited-ain't-a-right, but that's reality.

TC
TFL Survivor

[Graystar]

Untrue as stated. Many states in addition to Vermont recognize--both in writing and in practice--the individual's right to KBA; the others simply recognize it as a right subject to limitations and even revocation by a more powerful entity than the individual (the state). Quibble if you will about whether a-right-that-can-be-limited-ain't-a-right, but that's reality. Vermont is the only state that allows you to carry concealed without a license. Every other state requires a license.

[Partisan Ranger]

My defense of RKBA:


"Murder is illegal, yet it still occurs. Criminals, by their very nature, have no respect for laws or other people. If they will commit murder and rape, why would they obey gun laws?"

Then I cite the outrageous murder rates in DC where guns are...ahem....'banned.' Then compare/contrast them with the much, much lower murder rates in Virginia, where it's easy to buy guns.

[AnklePocket]

?:

"Clearly, we all have the same concerns. Guns aren't for everyone, but many people see the right to protect themselves and their families as a very important civil right. I honor that as I would honor and protect all civil rights.
Gun restriction does not prevent crime. Great law enforcement supported by great politicians will."

[dance varmint]

I like the one from Eric Raymond's Gun Nut page,
http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/reductio.html
(ESR is well known to the open source & linux crowd.)