anti-gun comeback line thread


PDA






kbbailey
December 27, 2012, 01:27 AM
Arm yourself with some quick come-back arguments and lines for the anti-gun crowd:




Ill start.

There are more Americans killed by alcohol abuse than by firearms.
How many shootings are alcohol induced??
Should we ban the sale of booze??
Should we make laws that you cannot buy beer in a hi-cap container like a 30 pack??
Would it help if beer were only available in 6-packs
Why does anyone need a fifth of whiskey??

If you enjoyed reading about "anti-gun comeback line thread" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
HDCamel
December 27, 2012, 01:34 AM
If deer had rifles, how many people would hunt?

hueytaxi
December 27, 2012, 02:24 AM
You do not banter. You take action and let your congressperson know their retention hangs on their support of legitimate gun owners. Nothing retroactive, nothing registered, nothing taxed, nothing that takes jobs away from US manufacturers.

ColtPythonElite
December 27, 2012, 02:36 AM
I like guns.

JohnnyK
December 27, 2012, 12:50 PM
hi cap 30 round beer container... i like that... assault beer package... nobody needs that!!! especially if it's nice cold shiner...
what about kegs... that's way too much for personal consumption... need to ban those as well...

JustinJ
December 27, 2012, 01:43 PM
What if the person you are arguing with is also a prohibitionist?

JERRY
December 27, 2012, 01:47 PM
tell them there are two kinds of people, those who stand up and those who bend over then thank them for showing which one they are.

Recon Ron
December 27, 2012, 02:04 PM
Firearms are not the only thing affected by your proposed legislature, the regulation of private property is a slippery slope that could soon turn your hobby or passion into an illegal past-time. I am advocating the ability to possess and control my own property without government interference.

You are thinking small picture, I am thinking big.

JustinJ
December 27, 2012, 02:07 PM
tell them there are two kinds of people, those who stand up and those who bend over then thank them for showing which one they are.

Insulting people is obviously the best method to persuade them to change their mind. Why didn't i think of that?

jrdolall
December 27, 2012, 02:16 PM
Credit cards probably kill a lot more people than do firearms. How many suicides and murders occur each year because of the debt associated with the abuse of credit cards? There have been umpteen changes in credit card regulations over the past 5 years that are aimed at curbing the abuse yet people continue to get in trouble by poor use of a good tool. I wonder how many politicians are trying to ban credit cards? I use credit cards for virtually EVERYTHING I spend including paying bills, groceries, gas, etc. I carry a little bit of cash and maybe write 5 checks per month. I have not paid a single penny in credit card interest in over 10 years because I use the cards responsibly.
I own guns that are legal to own. I do not abuse those guns and have never gone on a killing spree. Why should we implement new regulations just because there are a few people who abuse their right to own a gun. A gun is a tool and if properly used is not a danger to anyone. It can even save your life. a credit card is a tool that, if properly used, will ot hurt anyone and could help you out of some hard times.
They can invent new rules to control the use of anything but the bottom line is that some people are going to misuse any tool. Cars, cell phones, credit cards, alcohol(technically not a tool I guess), tobacco, guns, whatever.

Manco
December 27, 2012, 02:18 PM
Just use the same comebacks we've always used and principles we've always stood by, as the latest mass murder really changed nothing factually. If you take away our guns, then only criminals--including mass murderers--will have them. That's just as true as ever--well, maybe even more so if, hypothetically, mass murders are really on the rise.

What has changed are views and emotions, which are powerful factors working against us, but that just means we'll have to try harder to overcome prejudice.

JERRY
December 27, 2012, 03:06 PM
Insulting people is obviously the best method to persuade them to change their mind. Why didn't i think of that?

anti gun rights crowd are not open to reason, you lose nothing by thanking them.

if the OP mentioned folks whom are ignorant of the facts and open to reason there are no "come-backs", there is only the telling the truth, using logic and reason for they have not yet lost the ability to think.

leadchucker
December 27, 2012, 03:44 PM
You want to take my guns because you say it will stop violence. I refuse. You mad.

I give you my guns, violence doesn't stop, and now I can't defend myself. Me mad.

Better you mad.

morcey2
December 27, 2012, 03:56 PM
Do I need to apply for a permit to be able to speak my mind on the interwebs or write a letter-to-the-editor in a newspaper?

Do I need to apply for an exemption to be able to be free from illegal search and seizure?

Do I need to receive training and have local law-enforcement authorization to freely exercise my religion?

Do I need to pay an exorbitant tax to be able to not be forced to house and feed troops in my own home? *

Should I only be able to refuse to incriminate myself where the government thinks it's appropriate and 'reasonable'?

Why is the Second amendment any different? If it was interpreted the same way that every other amendment is interpreted by those who love "a living constitution", we would all be required to own guns, know how to use them, and have them on our person at all times.

Matt

*I'm already paying an exorbitant tax. It might be cheaper to house some of them in my own home. :)

armoredman
December 27, 2012, 05:00 PM
morcey, I tried to have a discussion with an anti at work, and I brought up the rest of the Bill of Rights...and he was JUST FINE GETTING RID OF THE WHOLE BILL OF RIGHTS. No problem at all, government should be allowed to tell us how to do anything.
Scary - they walk among us.

cfullgraf
December 27, 2012, 05:14 PM
Should we make laws that you cannot buy beer in a hi-cap container like a 30 pack??


I am surprised Bloomberg has not banned large beers in restaurants and bars because of the high calories--no wait, that would cut into his tax revenue.

oldbear
December 27, 2012, 06:20 PM
Jerry, it's not the anit-gun folks we have to worry about it the majority of the population who, generally, have no strong feelings about firearms one way or another.

We need to conduct ourselves as gentlemen and ladies at all times, but with extra care right now. the last thing we need right now is one more person thinking that all gun owners are angry smart asses.

jmace57
December 27, 2012, 06:56 PM
When seconds count...the police are just minutes away.

Tom488
December 27, 2012, 08:03 PM
Swimming pools have killed more kids than so-called "assault weapons"... therefore, in the interests of the children, we should ban the private possession of swimming pools. No one "needs" their own swimming pool - they can just go to a local community pool if they want to swim.

I mean - if it can save just ONE child's life, isn't it worth it?

flinglead
December 27, 2012, 08:39 PM
InteThat is true but it will not matter to the knee jerks.
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html
Kick down the door and fill them with dirt. Interesting stats for relevance anyway.

climbnjump
December 27, 2012, 09:06 PM
When seconds count...the police are just minutes away.

The CNN timeline of the Sandy Hook tragedy showed 20 minutes between the first 911 call and the arrival of cops onsite.

There was much bad info published in those first days, but I have not seen an update on that - anyone have better info? If it was truly 20 minutes, why?

JERRY
December 28, 2012, 12:54 AM
old bear, its fairly easy to distinguish between an anti gun rights person and one who just hasnt been told the truth yet. conduct yourself accordingly but refuse to walk on egg shells.

W.E.G.
December 28, 2012, 01:08 AM
Do NOT stoop to the level of exchanging one-liners in this critical time.

If somebody comes at you with a one-liner, you should INSIST that they sit down and defend their position fully. You should INSIST that they answer questions that you will ask.

Don't get into some sort of junior-high-school exchange of one-liner rhetoric with people who gratuitously attack your Constitutional rights.

Lex Luthier
December 28, 2012, 01:18 AM
Some people call 911, some people are 911.

Thylacine
December 28, 2012, 01:54 AM
Why do you call the police when these happen? Because they have guns. See anything there......?

JohnsXDM
December 28, 2012, 02:01 AM
My 2 cents..... Out of the 9,000 or so gun deaths each year, how many are drug related/gangbangers killing other drug related/gangbangers?? Most of that number I would suspect. As far as I'm concerned, let them kill each other!

Girodin
December 28, 2012, 09:35 AM
I like to first get people to agree to the proposition that, be it guns or anything else, we should not create laws that will not have a measurable impact. I.E. we should not pass a gun control measure unless it will actually make us safer (and even then it must be something that does not run afoul of the second amendment).

When people say there should be an assault weapons ban I like to ask them what constitutes an "assault weapon." They often can say, "something like an AK." I then like to explain that it also includes, at least in terms of the law, any guns that have certain features. I then like to ask them why any one of those features makes a gun more dangerous. For example:

How does a gun having a pistol grip and opposed to a grip integrated into the stock make a gun more dangerous and something that we should ban?

How does a telescoping stock make a gun more dangerous than an identical gun with a fixed stock and why is it something we should ban? I often will follow up with, "do you know why some guns are even made with that feature?" I then explain.

I'll do the same with: threaded barrels, flash hider, folding stock, barrel shrouds, etc

I try not to be rude or condescending in any way. However, I use as a starting point for the discussion an agreement that if there is no benefit to creating a law, then it ought not be created. I'm yet to hear any articulation of how those features actually make a gun more dangerous. Most people cannot even tell you what they are or what they do. I nice explanation of why guns actually have those features can help to show even further how silly AWB legislation is.

Unreasonable people will do what unreasonable people do, get huffy, put their head in the sand, and not care that they can not even articulate a rational basis for their belief that such things should be banned. Reasonable people may at a minimum reflect on it.

I like to do the same for other gun control propositions as well. Ten round mag limits, waiting periods, etc. There are two kinds of anti gun folks. Those who know that gun control does nothing to make us safer but are interested in the real purpose of gun control, controlling people and further subjugating them. There are, however, some folks that simply mistakenly believe, for a variety of reasons, that various gun control propositions would make us safer, would reduce violence. The first doesn't care what you say, they actually agree with most of it. The latter, we can hope to educate.

I also like to discuss the second amendment. Most folks have such a poor grasp of the constitution it is sad. I like to highlight what the real purpose of the second amendment is. The modern day equivalent of the types of weapons the founding farthers sought to protect. Here folks sometimes argue that these weapons are so different from what existed in 1791 (although I'm also amazed at how many people fail to note that as the correct point in time to reference) that the second amendment could not be intended to protect them or does not apply to modern more capable technology. Here I like to refer other constitutional amendments. I point out that the SCOTUS has not adpoted that logic for any other amendment. Notably the 1st. Do they think that the internet is not protected by the first? Or the phone? Fax? DVD? TV? materials produced through modern publication? Things said with sound amplification technology? In 1791 the founding fathers could only have envisioned people getting out ideas (including dangerous or harmful ideas) by face to face speaking, hand drafted documents and images, and type set printing. However, we recognize the underlying values and intent. The same is the case with the second amendment.

youngda9
December 28, 2012, 11:11 AM
AMAZING post Girodin !!!

jbrown50
December 28, 2012, 11:36 AM
What if the person you are arguing with is also a prohibitionist?
I point out to them that banning guns won't get rid of them. It'll just make it illegal for the law abiding to have them.

Non-prescription drugs are banned but they're routinely bought into the country daily via the black market. What makes you think that guns and gun parts such as 30 + round magazines won't also be smuggled into the country and/or illegally obtained from the police and military?

The reason police carry semi-autos with 13 + round capacity is because they realize that the criminals are going to have them no matter what the law says. Guess what?........those criminals that the police are forced to confront are the same criminals that a citizen will have to initially confront but, without the backup of fellow officers and the umbrella of government immunity. These criminals will most likely be high on drugs like PCP, high in numbers from three to five, and high in number of guns and round count.

The United States is like no other country in the world. We rely heavily on intra-world and interstate commerce. Our daily port traffic is incredible. We have vast borders and ocean fronts. Unlike smaller and less populous countries we can't possibly screen and analyze everything that traverses our borders.

happygeek
December 28, 2012, 11:49 AM
What if the person you are arguing with is also a prohibitionist?


Then they've got deeper lying beliefs and nothing you say about guns is going to change that. I know someone like that, I haven't bothered talking guns with her. When legalizing marijuana in WA was up for a vote this year I told her alcohol by far does more damage to society as a whole than any drug (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/01/alcohol.harm/index.html), her response was that just means we need more controls on alcohol.

Some people you aren't going to convince. But you can vote for it yourself, and it passed :)

kbbailey
December 28, 2012, 11:52 AM
It is great to see the views and strategy of fellow gun owners.


Some gun owners are not necessarily shooting enthusiasts. I read a story of an elderly woman who kept a revolver for her protection. She would claim her primary reason for being armed was to defend herself and family from the government. If anyone would question her reasoning, she would show her Star of David.

There is an entire generation that knows very little about the events in Germany 75yrs ago.

Infidel4life11
December 28, 2012, 12:20 PM
Some people call 911, Some people are 911.

My Vote ^

JustinJ
December 28, 2012, 12:28 PM
Guys, the prohibitionist comment was in jest. :P

Baba Louie
December 28, 2012, 12:39 PM
Prohibition never works totally. It ALWAYS brings on black markets, their criminal profiteers and warfare among the same for control, witness: Mexican Drug Cartels. Is that really how you want this to end up, with well armed criminals beheading innocent Americans, corrupt police and government officials and war in the streets? (A little hyperbole perhaps but then again maybe not...)

Girodin
December 28, 2012, 12:42 PM
There is an entire generation that knows very little about the events in Germany 75yrs ago.

Some people will try to act as if in this country needing a gun to defend from tyranny is an unthinable fantasy. Sadly there are many examples of gun control laws or confiscation of arms being used as a predicate to oppress, subjugate, and murder groups of people who.

Some quick examples:

The racist gun controls laws included in the various "black codes" to keep blacks defenseless, subjugated and make them much easier to victimize. Turns out the KKK found their work much easier if their intended victims were left without a means to defend themselves. (The modern gun control movement starting in the 60's was also based largely on a desire to disarm politically active urban blacks).

Martin Luther King Jr. was denied a permit to carry a gun. He applied after his house was bombed.

Mormons in the 1830s were forced to turn over their guns. The mormons were massacred, had their homes burned, and were lynched. At the Huan's mill massacre Thomas McBride, a mormon who surrendered his rifle to a mob member in an attempt to appease and show that the mormons did not intend violence, was shot right then with his own gun. The killer then mangled his body with a knife while McBride was still alive.

The governor of Missouri [I previously erroniously stated it was IL, and have edited this post to correct that mistake] even signed an extermination order which stated that "the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State. . ." Mormons were in fact driven from their homes in the midwest in middle of the winter. A large number of mormons died as a result of exposure and the trek west as they fled governments and mobs that disarmed them and drove them out. The mormons appealed directly to the President of the US who basically said admitted that they had a just cause but refused to try and protect them as the mormons were not a popular group and politically it would have been a bad move. BTW the bill of rights seeks to protect people when the majority wont because it is not popular.

Gun control even in this country has been used as a means to control and a predicate to much greater abuses. This is the same basic motivation, control, of the real proponents of gun control today.

morcey2
December 28, 2012, 01:45 PM
The governor of Illinois even signed an extermination order which stated that "the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State. . ." Mormons were in fact driven from their homes in the midwest in middle of the winter. A large number of mormons died as a result of exposure and the trek west as they fled governments and mobs that disarmed them and drove them out. The mormons appealed directly to the President of the US who basically said admitted that they had a just cause but refused to try and protect them as the mormons were not a popular group and politically it would have been a bad move. BTW the bill of rights seeks to protect people when the majority wont because it is not popular.

Mostly correct, but it was Governor Boggs of Missouri, not Illinois. It wasn't formally rescinded until 1976. But a very good example. I have ancestors that were at Haun's Mill.

Matt

jbrown50
December 28, 2012, 02:28 PM
Guys, the prohibitionist comment was in jest. :P
I know.

I assumed you posted it for responses, not that you buy in to that thinking.

Spats McGee
December 28, 2012, 02:30 PM
I haven't read the whole thread, but I will lay out some of my strategies (or tactics, if that's really the appropriate word) for dealing with the antis. These are in no particular order.

1) If the discussion is on Facebook (the only social media that I really use), don't get involved in "spitting contests." Stay calm, ask a few questions, and provide solid information. It's all the better if you can provide information that an anti (or, more likely, a fence-sitter) can verify on their own. IMHO, this time around, it's a "social media fight." If we don't get out and take control of that venue, we could be in trouble.

2) If they want to discuss the old AWB, or a new one, have them look up images of (for example) an M1 and an AR-15. Explain that AWBs typically ban the latter, but not the former. Then tell them which one fires the more powerful round. If you're debating a real serious anti, you will likely get the response, "Then ban them both." That's a risk we take in entering these debates.

3) While I believe that statistics support the pro-gun position, I have some significant reservations about using statistics to support our argument. Why? Because I believe that the Bill of Rights, in many ways, is very undemocratic. It is intended and designed to protect the rights of the few against being overrun by the many. I frame this issue as follows: "Imagine, just for a moment, that Congress passes the Magical Gun Ban of 2013. It is almost perfect in its execution, and almost every gun owner, free man and felon alike, will surrender their firearms to the government. It will reduce gun homicides to 1 per year in the United States. Unfortunately, your daughter is the one scheduled for next year. How will you vote?"

4) Remind the fence-sitters that the 2A isn't about hunting. When the BoR was adopted, hunting was a given. It was about the fact that we (the colonies) had just freed ourselves from a tyrannical government. IOW, we had just declared war on our own government, a very powerful one at that, and won. I am not, in any way, advocating the violent overthrow of our government, but the fence-sitters need to be reminded that "sporting purposes" wasn't part of the 2A vocabulary until much, much later.

5) Remind them that it's a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. On top of that, just because one individual has never needed to exercise a right does not mean that we as a society do not need for the individual to have that right. For example, I have never, personally, needed to exercise my 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search & seizure, my 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, or my 8th Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. Nonetheless, the fact that individuals do have those rights is a deterrent to keep police/gov't forces from kicking in doors and torturing confessions out of whatever unlucky souls happen to be home at the time. I haven't personally needed those rights, but we, as a society, do need for individuals to have those rights.

Averageman
December 28, 2012, 02:53 PM
For those who would like to prohibit and confiscate.

I would ask them to go door to door and confiscate every gun and Hi Cap magazine in their neighborhood.
Usually the come back is, "Are you threatening me?"
No, you see that is the reality, you have no autority real or imagined to take those guns and it would be very dangerous to do.Just like the Federal, State and local governments have no authority to take my guns.
My right to defend myself, my family and my property were given to me by God and no Man can take that away.
But;
If you think it should be done, then why shouldn't you get up and go start the show for us?

mastiffhound
December 28, 2012, 03:12 PM
When they are leading us both to the gas chamber I hope I'm there to tell you "I told you so".

What I said above is not a joke. I'm not trying to be funny. My Great Grandmother was in Nazi Germany with my Great Grandfather. They survived, but he didn't live long enough for me to meet him. My Great Grandmother said one of the first things my Great Grandfather did when they became American citizens was buy a gun. She had his guns until the day she passed.

My Great Grandmother only told me a few things about how it was over there. She said the memories of starving were some of the worst. She told me how people registered and then were told to turn in their guns. She always had more food in her house than 20 people could eat. The few things she mentioned always would make her tear up and sometimes sob. I stopped asking about things while I was in grade school, seeing her cry was too much.

In the news today Germany had their national gun registry. If she would have lived to see that she would have probably been inconsolable. This isn't a laughing matter guys. It can get very serious very fast.

Tirod
December 28, 2012, 03:24 PM
If it saves the life of just one child, then every car in America should have a breathalyzer installed.

Over 4,000 children a year drown in swimming pools, and a thousand die. But, we don't ban swimming pools.

Most children killed in car accidents have their mom behind the wheel. Ban mothers driving cars, then the senseless slaughter stops.

Three thousand teens die from driving under the influence, and none of it is legal. The laws are ignored, what are you doing to help?

You're 50 times more likely to die from misadmiinistered drugs or medical procedures - we don't ban doctors and nurses, do we?

Do we want to trust Government even more when the BATF allows the Mexican Cartel to illegally purchase guns in the US and kill us with them?

The best methods aren't one liners, it's a direct statement about the ability to toss aside the Constitution and the rule of law so they can feel better. "Life isn't that simple, folks."

Frankly, most of it is trash talking to see who they can bait, and your reaction is what they are fishing to get. Don't feed the trolls.

Girodin
December 28, 2012, 03:40 PM
Morcey2, duly noted and edited to correct the error. Thanks. I should have looked it up to be certain before posting.

Carl N. Brown
December 28, 2012, 03:55 PM
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm

USA Today 2007

Percentage of murder victims with criminal records
75% Philadelphia PA
77% Milwaukee WI (average record 12 arrests)
85% Newark NJ
91% Baltimore MD

Most are "acquaintance murders": the victims are killed by persons who are known to the victim and who have criminal records themselves.

Baltimore State Attorney Patricia Jessamy noted that murders of innocent victims (not involved in crime) was so rare the city was becoming numb to the carnage.

(I have seen stats out of Boston that the majority of murders there are criminals killing criminals. Also I have noted that our local prosecutors' policy on criminal-on-criminal killings is that taking a "good riddance" attitude toward such killings just increases the chance an innocent person will killed. ("No Broken Windows" applied to criminal-on-criminal homicide.) The killings of two local cocaine dealers by elements of the "New York Boys" Baltimore-NYC connection is prosecuted as seriously as if the victims were two nuns.)

proud2deviate
December 28, 2012, 04:52 PM
How do y'all reply to the "guns are specifically made to kill people," line? You try to debate these people with facts on deaths caused by cars, booze, cigarettes, swimming pools, botched medical care, but they always throw out "yeah, but those things aren't designed to kill/murder people."

It's kind of telling that intent or perceived intent matters more to these people than factual evidence. It's the anti-gunner equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting, "Lalalalala, I can't hear you!"

76shuvlinoff
December 28, 2012, 05:28 PM
It's worth noting that for all their strict gun laws Chicago is sitting right on 500 murders for the year.

How those murders were committed is irrelevant to me. It just would give me a real valid reason to carry a gun.

Baba Louie
December 28, 2012, 05:42 PM
How do y'all reply to the "guns are specifically made to kill people," line? This sounds trite, but I've always used, "Guns are made to shoot bullets. Without bullets and someone to pull the trigger, they are as useful as a club... maybe." The key is to add the person behind the trigger into their equation. Then, should you choose, you can go into good vs bad intent of that person or good or bad use of that "gun specifically made to kill".

In reality a gun is a "TOOL TO PROJECT FORCE". To chuck a rock... With some speed... And some accuracy.

Left alone, it remains benign. Someone picks it up, however... now you factor in "intent".

But you need to let your protaganist see that simplification and hope they can grasp it. Tool = gadget or device. Mind/Intent = weapon

Sometimes it even gets thru.

aeriedad
December 28, 2012, 10:07 PM
Here are two Facebook statuses I've used. They are somewhat longer than a "one liner," but I think quite relevant to this discussion. The first is from last week; the second from more than a year ago:

In 2010, there were 10,389 U.S. drunk driving fatalities, and 8,775 firearm fatalities. None of the former were lawful, though at least some of the latter were the result of lawful self defense. Nevertheless, a few mentally unstable individuals have committed horrific crimes using firearms, and some elements of society want to punish law-abiding gun owners with draconian measures that promise nothing more than "security theater." Lets apply the anti-gunners' "logic" in the battle against drunk driving:

1. Restrict automobile registration to only those who can demonstrate a compelling need for such a dangerous weapon.
2. Impose 10-day waiting period to purchase any motorized vehicle.
3. Restrict purchases to no more than one motorized vehicle per month.
4. Restrict the possession of fast automobiles to the government (i.e., police, fire fighters, military, politicians, etc,). No citizen needs a vehicle capable of speeds greater than 80 MPH.
5. Require bar and liquor store owners to register every sale with BATF.
6. Require auto dealers and gas station owners to register every sale with the DOT.
7. Consider legislation to hold automobile manufacturers, oil companies and alcoholic beverage producers liable for all deaths, injuries or damages that result from lawful or unlawful use of their products.

I'm sure there are many more, but these will be tough enough to enact anyway, and this is a good start. Also, there is no shortage of bureaucrats who can conceive far mor creative and restrictive measures.

Clearly, although we can't rule out personal responsibility as a factor in drunk driving fatalities, America has an automobile problem, and it's time we implement "sensible car control."

---------------------------------

Once upon a time, a free people decided that guns caused violent crime, so they banned guns. But violent criminals ignored the gun ban and continued using their evil guns to commit violent crimes against law-abiding citizens. Without guns, the people could not defend themselves, so they banned violent crime too. All the violent criminals saw that they had no choice but to turn in their guns and become law-abiding citizens, and everyone lived happily ever after. The End

---------------------------------

I'm fond of irony and clever humor, but if given a chance for real dialogue, I do not engage in personal attacks or ridicule, as that can only do harm to my purpose. Such discussions are best abandoned.

TJx
December 28, 2012, 11:01 PM
Sure, you can have your gun ban as long as you attach to the bill banning abortions.
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), since 1973, roughly 50 million legal induced abortions have been performed in the United States.
If a liberals "right" to an abortion was threatened they would be rioting in the streets which is interesting since my rights to self preservation is both God given and Constitutionally protected which the same cannot be said about abortion.
If life is so precious then...

If life is so precious then why in the proposed Feinstein bill are they allowing us to grandfather our "Assault Weapons" ?
The provision that we are to turn them over to the government when we die is proof beyond a reasonable doubt this is about disarmament in a generation's time and not about public safety or saving lives.

EBK
December 28, 2012, 11:26 PM
What if the person you are arguing with is also a prohibitionist?
Then its time to stop arguing and walk away. That person obvioulsy hates freedom.
I can not stand Alcohol and believe it to be the cause of a lot of violence however I can not and will not try to tell anyone what they can or can not consume or own.

JN01
December 28, 2012, 11:43 PM
How do y'all reply to the "guns are specifically made to kill people," line?

The one I hear the most is the related "the only use for a gun is to kill".

Really? Since there are an estimated 300 million guns in the US, and billions of rounds are sold and used each year, shouldn't the population be pretty well wiped out by now, if killing is the only use for them?

denton
December 29, 2012, 12:02 AM
There was a case a few years ago of a 70 year old woman whose home was invaded by two men. She ran down the hall to her bedroom, to retrieve her 38 Special. As she passed the study, she noticed her husband's 44 Magnum lying on the table with a full speed loader nearby. She scooped up the gun, loaded it, and faced her intruders. The first made a lunge for her, and she put three rounds into his center of mass. The second started to draw a knife, and said, "Now, bitch, you're going to die." Mistaking his submissive and contrite statement for a threat against her life, she put the remaining three rounds into his chest. Both were DRT.

So let me be clear. If you're talking about restricting firearms, making them less available, you're talking about restricting that 70 year old woman's right and ability to defend herself.

That's a weighty responsibility, yet you seem very eager to accept it.

Our Founders knew the risks and the benefits of giving us the ability to defend ourselves. They chose to give us the Second Amendment. If you want to argue that that's bad policy, you're a little over 200 years late to the meeting where it was decided.

jack404
December 29, 2012, 12:18 AM
I'm Australian , i've heard all the lies about gun control and lived through the facts twice , first in the Uk where i was based for a while while in the Australian army then later at home , i lived through the warrentless searches and the locking up of good people because they where left a gun in a will but had no permit , i've seen the liberals cry with joy when a gun owner was jailed for refusing to hand over a $13,000 gun for $100 , and then watched the state sell that gun for $10,000 to a collector who did not have a licence but did donate money to political parties ( leftists ones)

I have seen good people shot in the back by police for walking away from them

i have seen the police resign when they see the truth in the states actions and them be replaced with crooks and thives as only crooks would do what was needed to get rid of the guns , that lead to 10 years of absolute corruption within the police and criminals having free reign and a new crime be born , home invasion , and watched the government take 10 years to define what a home invasion is , but are yet to make it illegal , but it is illegal to defend yourself against these invaders

tell the lies to someone who has a chance to beleive you

i know what gun control is

its evil and a tool of those who wish to oppress us all,

and its why i have spent 16 years and my life savings fighting it all here

and we are winning , slowly ,

the best one is want gun free move to Australia where they banned all the guns

move to lakemba its a great place and cheap

see how long they last in what the locals call little gaza

happygeek
December 29, 2012, 02:57 AM
Guys, the prohibitionist comment was in jest. :P


I'm sure, but there really are people out there who think the government knows best and that people can't be trusted with 32 oz sodas, alcohol, marijuana, and dang sure not firearms.

I refer to them as 'nanny-staters', and there's really no point in arguing 2A rights with them. You'd first have to convince them of the whole 'the government works for us' and 'we're not children & the government isn't the parent' first.

kbbailey
December 29, 2012, 01:30 PM
Really? Since there are an estimated 300 million guns in the US, and billions of rounds are sold and used each year, shouldn't the population be pretty well wiped out by now, if killing is the only use for them

a very good point^^^

DammitBoy
December 29, 2012, 10:04 PM
I prefer the following quote;

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." ~ Samuel Adams

oldbear
December 30, 2012, 05:43 PM
old bear, its fairly easy to distinguish between an anti gun rights person and one who just hasnt been told the truth yet. conduct yourself accordingly but refuse to walk on egg shells.

Jerry, I agree with you totally, but I still believe that we NEED to remember to conduct ourselves like the Ladies and gentlemen we are, specially now.

Happy new Years...

Stevie-Ray
December 30, 2012, 07:37 PM
i know what gun control is

its evil and a tool of those who wish to oppress us all,

and its why i have spent 16 years and my life savings fighting it all here
Thanks for that, mate. I worked with an Aussie that stayed here in America and took all his vacation at once to go home once a year. I'll never forget him always saying that'd never happen in Australia, whenever we were fighting another anti-gun bill from the likes of Schumer and Fienstein. All of a sudden it happened-way worse than it ever happened in America. He was appalled at the speed his beloved guns became death machines to be destroyed at the whim of a few.

zorro45
December 30, 2012, 07:44 PM
Everybody should have to use the same public swimming pool, after all, it is elitist to have a privately owned means of swimming and something that dangerous should be supervised closely by the State with "certified lifeguards"--- wait a minute, Connecticut has had four recent deaths in public school physical education classes, maybe my pool isn't so dangerous after all.

kbbailey
December 30, 2012, 10:09 PM
Yep, I really appreciate Costas-Gregory-types trying to get my 2a rights abolished while making a fortune for themselves exploiting and cowering behind the 1st amendment.

SouthernYankee
December 31, 2012, 01:27 AM
Avg. Crime <5min
Avg. Police Response Time >15min
Good Luck to the Unarmed, and I hope you get to help with the paperwork :eek:

Crash_Test_Dhimmi
December 31, 2012, 01:31 AM
Ted Kennedy's Liquor cabinet has killed more people than my assault rifle

If you enjoyed reading about "anti-gun comeback line thread" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!