FB help!!


January 18, 2013, 05:59 PM
I saw this on my wall and couldn't help myself. Can you please help me with this? I will keep you all updated, and fyi I am 17 she is 15.. Im Zack BTW

If I see one more post about people and their gun rights being "lost", I will kick a puppy and go into a full, many paragraphed, well put together argument about why you have nothing to worry about. NO ONE on the face of the earth wants me to go into a political rant.

12 people like this..

Joshua Please proceed O Mighty facebook warrior, and prove to us you have no life.

Zack Go ahead then. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing and there are efforts to confinscate civilian weapons out there so I am not stopping.

Sarah Exactly WHAT efforts would those be, Zack? You think the government is gonna hire 100,000 people and come to everyone's door and say "I would like your guns please?" no. they cant do that. Its a violation of the 2nd, 4th, and 10th amendment. In order to violate THOSE amendments they have to first CREATE and amendment(s) enabling them to do so. Which is a time consuming and unnecessary task, not to mention the violation of so many amendments would NOT pass. Also, the sheer manpower required to take everyone's guns is impossible. Who's gonna do it? Not the military. I think you'll survive without a mag holding more than ten rounds.

Tyler If youre a red neck, you wont. lol

Sarah true

Frances Why in the civilian world would you even want a ten round mag? Or for that matter a gun designed explicitly for killing people?

Tyler Believe it or not, some people dont THINK that it is JUST for killing people..

Zack And what do you need to take away mags that hold more than 10 rounds for is what I ask you. And yes in New York they are talking about a mandatory gun buyback and Feinstein is talking about a nationwide manditory gun buyback. On top of that the whold purpose of the second amendment is NOT duck hunting it is the people's right to keep the government in check. THAT is why "assault" weapons are needed.

Zack @Frances, The AR-15 is a civilianized version of the military's M16 so therefore it is not intended to kill people. The M16 is and I agree full auto weapons are not needed by civilians but AR 15's are not like the m16 in any way other than looks.

Please tell me how I should handle this from here

If you enjoyed reading about "FB help!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
January 18, 2013, 06:12 PM
The best thing to do is stop right where you are and do some research here.

Look for the threads on the FBI UCR and the CDC, National Research Council, and DoJ studies on the effectiveness on the '94 AWB. The studies were at the behest of the Clinton administration. They were intended to show the effect on violent crime rates the AWB was expected to have. Instead they all showed that so-called "gun control" laws, including the AWB, had no beneficial impact on the rate of violent crime in the U.S. Look at the FBI UCR threads and how the FBI analysis of crime in the U.S. shows that violent crime has fallen by 17% since 2007 and that all rifles in 2011 were used in less than 3% of all murders as opposed to hands and feet that were used in 12% of them. Ask how does the violent crime rate in the U.S. fall while ARs and similar semiauto rifles using 20 and 30 round magazines have become the most popular firearm purchased during those years and that there are over half a million magazines that hold more than 10 rounds in people's hands if these firearms are supposed to make crime rates higher. Point out that none of the government studies trumpeted the AWB as having reduced crime, that crime has fallen year after year since the expiration of the AWB while AR sales and 20-30 round magazine sales have gone up, and that when something doesn't cause a problem you don't treat it as if it does and ignore the real cause of the problem.

January 18, 2013, 06:18 PM
You are dealing with a group of children educated and brainwashed by the liberal left. They are not thinking for themselves, they are regurgitating liberal talking points.

It is pointless to debate someone who can not, and will not think for themselves.

But if you insist on dragging yourself through the mire of teenaged opinions, I'd start by pointing out the recent NY legislation that limits magazine capacity with no grandfathering. Thousands of law abiding citizen are now faced with the possibility of becoming criminals if they do not abandon their property. They are not being confiscated, but it yields the same result.

Then point out the proposal in CT, limiting firearms to a SINGLE round.

Then, find a few good articles from The Armed Citizen, focusing in on kids and women who have defended themselves and their families with firearms.

When asked why I need a 30 round magazine in a semi automatic rifle, I reply with the fact that many bad guys are also running around with similar weapons. If it comes to it, I do not want a fair fight. In a fair fight, it's a 50/50 chance I lose. I want to stack the deck as heavily in my favor as I possibly can. If I'm stuck with a 10 round magazine, legally, and a criminal has once again ignored the law and is running around with a 30 round magazine, if whose favor is the deck stacked? Do you really want the bad guys to win? If a bad guy has a 10 round magazine, I want a 30 round magazine. If he has a 30 round magazine, I want body armor. If he has body armor, I want something else that will give me an advantage so at the end of the day, I'm back at home with my family rather than slabbed out in the morgue.

But, really, just don't get involved with kids.

January 18, 2013, 06:21 PM
Seems you need to block some folks while you gather your rebuttal

January 18, 2013, 07:35 PM

You never argue -anything- logically with a 15 year old girl. They just ain't wired that way.

January 18, 2013, 08:59 PM
My daughter-in-laws mother posted, that we need to stop posting all this gun stuff, I told her I was not going to stop posting it & unfriended her, nuff said..................

January 18, 2013, 09:45 PM

As real as it gets for virtual humans.


Spats McGee
January 18, 2013, 09:56 PM
As someone pointed out, rational debate with a 15-year-old girl is going to be difficult if not impossible.

As for this:
Exactly WHAT efforts would those be, Zack? You think the government is gonna hire 100,000 people and come to everyone's door and say "I would like your guns please?" no. they cant do that. Its a violation of the 2nd, 4th, and 10th amendment. In order to violate THOSE amendments they have to first CREATE and amendment(s) enabling them to do so. Which is a time consuming and unnecessary task, not to mention the violation of so many amendments would NOT pass. Also, the sheer manpower required to take everyone's guns is impossible. Who's gonna do it? Not the military. I think you'll survive without a mag holding more than ten rounds.
Just because it would be unconstitutional doesn't mean that it cannot be done. Possessing methamphetamine is illegal, but it can be done. If she believes that the government is incapable of violating the various amendments, google:
1) 42 U.S.C. 1983
2) The internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during WWII

January 18, 2013, 11:35 PM
Thanks guys, I just posted some of what you all said, and they keep posting incoherrient things nonetheless. I see myself unfriending someone in the near future, only problem is that they would go off proclaiming they won..

January 19, 2013, 10:08 AM
You are dealing with a group of children educated and brainwashed by the liberal left.

Unfriend Facebook. There. Done.

January 20, 2013, 11:40 AM
Unfriend Facebook. There. Done.
TURN OFF Farcebook ... finished

January 20, 2013, 12:50 PM
As such, untruthful arguments must be confronted wherever they may appear, especially among our youth.

Like it or not, social media is a powerful tool and the future of activism. It wouldn't be banned in certain countries if it were not so. By not getting involved and learning how to appeal to the facebook generation you are not only neglecting an outlet through which you may effectively exercise your 1A rights, but you are also neglecting the most important demographic of our citizenry; our youth. If you have the youth, you have the future. So if you really want to fight for your children's rights to own firearms, help them out a little and learn how to appeal to their peers (and their parents) through social media. If you don't want to use your real info to sign up then use an alias. If you don't want to become friends with people in your social community (why you wouldn't want to reach the people in your own community I have no idea) then use the alias account to post on sites like MSNBC, ABC, CNN or whatever other outlets come to mind. Help pro-2A groups strengthen their online presence by becoming a fan of the NRA, GOA, SAF, The 2a Movement, etc. It's not like you have to feel trapped into using FB or Twitter for anything else.

I learned a lot of what I know about 2A right here on THR. The resources and discussions to be found here are relatively scarce particularly within the realms of social media. With everything that's been going on lately social media outlets ought to be flooded with the basic arguments against GC that this forum's membership generally stands behind, but instead it is currently being flooded by the MSM and the youth of this nation are sponging it up. Why? Because the other side is ahead of the propaganda curve, leaving many of us behind to gag on our own little dustcloud that we've kicked up by running in circles around ourselves.

That's not to say contacting our lawmakers isn't important; it's vital. But what happens when all of you guys kick it and the next generation doesn't understand the importance of 2A and contacting their lawmakers, hmm?

“The way the Obama campaign won Florida, won Ohio, won this election by more than projected was the combination of technology, social media and personal contact,” Clinton said. That’s “the only way that our side will ever be able to even up the votes in the midterms and as these issues come up, really touch people and talk to them about it.” -Bill Clinton, concerning 2A supporters on Saturday, Jan 19th 2013

So in short; cut the old fogey-ism, guys (and in sympathizing with your valid complaints concerning facebook and social media, I mean that in the most respectful and humble way possible. :D) Most of us are probably already on a list anyway.

wannabeagunsmith; you're right, when you lose an argument you get nowhere. But maybe you need to rethink your definition of "loser". This isn't a particularly hard argument to win because your opponents are immature. Bombard them with facts and polite, well-reasoned and well-researched arguments. I say well-researched because there are a lot of fallacious arguments out there, even on our side. When your opponents make fools of themselves BY TYPING like THIS!!!! and devolving into basket cases, they have lost and you have won. Don't think so much about trying to change their minds, because it's very likely you will not. Instead, focus more on changing the minds of fence-sitters who may be looking on. Onlookers are not caught up on the pride and emotionalism of the debate, so they are more likely to see who is making the logical argument and who is the nonsensical basket case.

Keep up the good fight, Zach. Our nation will need more like you going down the road. Be proud and count yourself as one among Patriots.

January 21, 2013, 01:36 AM
Thank you sir. I got in the last word and hopefully I changed some minds.

January 21, 2013, 01:51 AM
I want to know why we are allowed to help kids with their FaceBook arguments, but the kid (username horsemen61) who asked for help with his school assignment earlier today had his thread shut down by a moderator immediately.

Were you in a bad mood earlier, Jorg? :rolleyes:

January 21, 2013, 07:37 AM
It's FaceBook.

A vast wasteland.......Give it a few more years and it'll mercifully go the way of myspace.

January 21, 2013, 07:57 AM
Point of fact, the Long Land Bess musket of the French and Indian and Revolutionary wars was about five feet long, stout as hell, and topped with a seventeen inch bayonet. It was made for shooting, beating, and sticking the enemy. Washington himself ordered that all loads after 1777 be loaded with a combination of buck-and-ball, which was one musket ball and eight or ten buckshot pellets. The founders were fans of effective weapons with high rates of fire in civilian hands.
Food for thought.

Lex Luthier
January 21, 2013, 09:17 AM
Dude, fb is now a huge corporate entity that tracks you everywhere you go on the net. Cut your losses right now brother. I deactivated my account about two months ago and never looked back. It is not that important.

January 21, 2013, 11:54 AM
Post this up. My daughter wrote it and it has shut up everybody so far. I guess taking on a 14 year old is a bit much for them:
From 14 year old MaKala S.

Have you ever asked me what my father and I do on the weekends? We shoot. Rifles, bows, and even our muzzleloaders, they all are fun to shoot and to hunt with. You should try it sometime.

Recently there has been allot of discussion about the Second Amendment and what it should or should not allow. These discussions have been focused on the semiautomatic class of weaponry more commonly called by liberal mass media “assault weapons.” There have been discussions on how many bullets a person should be able to load at once, what the weapons people buy should look like, and even what new rules can be imposed upon those who, like me, enjoy shooting my rifles legally and safely.

My family is a firm believer in the right to bear arms. I inherited that belief honestly and so I stand firm in my belief that the right to bear arms should never be infringed. If I had not been barred from this type of research on school computers, I would have needed only a few moments to prove the foolishness of any action against the Second Amendment. I wish to simply present some points for those who wish to strip lawful citizens of their right to bear arms to consider. I am to the point so forgive me, but it is only the truth.

1. Banning "assault weapons" is foolish. The total number of murders committed with all rifles total is less than that of many other instruments. Blunt objects are more commonly used as murder weapons. In fact, several states report no rifles used in homicides in 2010. The state with the most murders committed by rifles is actually California which has an Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) in place already. That alone proves the uselessness of such a rule. Connecticut, it might be worth pointing out, had an AWB in place, and it failed to prevent the tragedy in Newtown. It might also noting that you are many times as likely to die today in a car accident than in this whole year by a gun of any kind.

2. Increasing Firearms regulations is also ineffective. The states with the strictest restrictions on firearms are also the ones in which most of the murders occurs. If this is looked at at the local level, those areas with the strictest laws are the most crime prone areas in the country. This can be seen in Detroit, Chicago, New York City, and many other areas. I would think that trying such a failed tactic would seem doomed to fail on a national level. Meanwhile in Kennesaw, Georgia every household is required to own a firearm and crime dropped 89% after passing the law. The crime rate remains lower than any other city of its size in the nation.

3. “Gun Free Zones” are killing Americans. My father is a Marine, sworn by Honor to defend those who cannot defend themselves. Yet, he has been stripped of that right in his own nation for his own children, for me right here, right now. I hate to think that this is true, but it is. If you look at the shootings the government is so focused on, every single one since 1950 has occurred in a place where firearms are barred. Meanwhile, there are many stories that are not drawing attention that show that having firearms present in such situations actually saves lives. I would feel much better about my brother, sister, and I attending a school where teachers are allowed to protect them properly than us being easy victims of an evil man.

4. Magazine capacity has little or nothing to do with lethality. I tested this myself. My father can change a magazine in his personal AR 15 in less than one second. Being that he is trained as a Marine, I asked my eleven year old sister to try it. After two tries she could consistently reload in less than two seconds. I can do it in one second myself. I can tell you that that will not save lives. Also consider that if you ban them, who will have them? The criminal element the government is trying to protect us against. They again will fail. It only limits our rights as lawful gun owners.

5. Registering every firearm is not likely to succeed and will be resisted by many. We will not register our rightfully owned firearms on a list that could be later used to confiscate them. There is no nation that has registered firearms and not later confiscated most or all of them. In all of those countries, the strong soon after preys upon the weak. This can be seen in the per capita crime rate in Great Britain and Australia. It can be seen melodramatically in the former Soviet Union, last century Germany, and early 20th century Turkey. I could find no nation that successfully registered firearms without a seizure and then a drastic increase in violent crimes.

6. Background checks on private sales will accomplish nothing as well. Many of the firearms used in crime are stolen. Those bought lawfully are by and large used that way. It is a near impossible law to enforce without registration, and would save no lives. Regulating the rifles my father has purchased for my sister and I would not stop anyone from stealing them and performing horrible acts with them.

7. I hate to repeat cliché terms, but the Second Amendment protects the rest of our rights. Without it we have no others. There is a direct line between that amendment and our freedom as citizens of a free nation. One of the hallmarks of the United States has always been that the people are stronger than the government. That is in place for a reason and should never be tampered with. It is the same reason that our nation still stands despite hardships that have broken other nations. This one right gives us all the power to keep things that way. Without it we become subjects rather than citizens.

If you wish to know what I would suggest, it would be simple. Leave us alone. Lawful gun owners cause no problems and save lives that are not tracked on many occasions. We are most often able to take care of ourselves. It is not us who ask for government help, but instead are always willing to offer it to anyone who may need it. We enjoy our sport shooting, hunting, and our right to self defense. We cause little trouble unless it is brought to us, and are in general the most patriotic of citizens. We need less interference rather than more.

Another idea would be to ask the media to not release the name(s) of any shooter involved with a mass shooting. They want fame and denying them that would go farther than anything shy of getting rid of “gun free zones” in reducing the occurrence of these heinous crimes. Denying these evil people the availability of easy victims like we are right now, and the fame they seek from their act would be the greatest deterrents I could imagine.

I believe in the Second Amendment even more than any other of the rights we enjoy. I simply want a life where I can enjoy those freedoms promised to me by my country. The right to bear arms guarantees that. As I have proven, no law can add such a guarantee by infringing upon that right. You cannot regulate away crime by regulating weapons. You cannot expect more regulations to do anything other than make the problem worse. I want to ask anyone what is to be gained by stripping me my rights because of a wrong I did not commit.


January 21, 2013, 03:55 PM
I like this quote, but the author is thought of as controversial, which can limit it's impact.

"If you are for gun control, then you're not against guns, because the guns

will be needed to disarm people. You'll need to go around, pass laws, and shoot

people who resist, kick in doors, and throw people in jail, and so on; rip up

families, just to take away guns. So it's not that you're anti-gun, because

[...] you'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns, so you're

very pro-gun, you just believe that only the government (which is of course so

reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward-thinking) should be allowed to

have guns. So there's no such thing as gun control, there's only centralizing

gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions. Gun

control is a misnomer." Stefan Molyneux

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