Going to be a panelist at a "Gun Contol Forum" tomorrow night - any talking points?


PDA






WC145
February 11, 2013, 05:48 PM
I've volunteered to be a panelist at a "Gun Control Forum" at the local state university tomorrow evening. The perspective I'm offering is that of a 2A advocate, LEO, and medical professional (respiratory therapist). The other panelists are the county Sheriff, the local school superintendent, a pastor/counselor/university instructor, and a clinical social worker/therapist. Except for the Sheriff, I have no idea where these other folks stand on the subject matter. The Sheriff has said in recent newspaper interviews that it should be harder to get concealed carry permits, only LE & military should have access to "assault weapons", and that he has always been in support of an AWB.

Anyway, I've been studying up for this for a few weeks (hoping I won't look foolish) but I'm sure that I've still missed plenty of great facts, talking points, statistics, quotes, etc. So, I'd love to hear some of the ideas and points that you feel really drive home the pro-gun, pro-2A position, that one thing over all others that you would present given an opportunity and an audience. Keep in mind that this event is being held at a college with a panel and audience that may not be all that sympathetic towards our positions.

Below is an email I rec'd from the moderator, it includes a link to the press release.

Thanks in advance. (and wish me luck!)


Hi Panel members-

The link is to our press release on the 2/12 forum.

Please try and get here by 6:15 to sign releases and get situated.

My colleague Tora Johnson will be co-moderating and handling a twitter feed.

After some short introductory remarks I will ask each of you to speak
for 1-2 minutes on what, if anything, you hope will emerge from this
national discussion.

I ask you to think about how we should balance freedom and security,
individual and community, and the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments in these
discussions.

After approximately 20-30 minutes of panel discussion, we will open the
floor to the audience, starting with any UMM students present.

I have asked that UMM security be present before and during the forum,
just as a precautionary measure. The campus, as you probably know, is a
gun free zone.



http://www.machias.edu/umm-to-host-forum-on-gun-rights-school-security-mental-health-and-culture.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Going to be a panelist at a "Gun Contol Forum" tomorrow night - any talking points?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SuperNaut
February 11, 2013, 06:12 PM
This is what I cover in almost every debate I have on this subject:

1. I am horrified at the shameless opportunism of the anti-gun people
a. Doing something is not the same as doing the right thing
b. Failure to address root causes is a waste of time, energy, money, resources, and good will.

2. The 2A has been codified as an individual right.

3. Gun control only punishes the law-abiding

4. Localized crime problems do not require a Federal response, the only way to fix community problems is within the community.

browneu
February 11, 2013, 06:22 PM
Don't let them frame the argument about needs. The bill of rights isn't about needs.

Don't let them get away with assault weapon nomenclature. Assault rifles are already regulated. Assault weapon is a made up term and cannot be defined.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

Sam1911
February 11, 2013, 06:26 PM
In direct response to the Moderator's question I think at some point you simply must get in Ben Franklin's quote:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

The "liberty is not SAFE" angle doesn't immediately (or at all) appeal to some folks. And you'll have to accept that people will say, "EVEN IF SCHOOLCHILDREN DIE???"

But it is a very deeply, viscerally true and resonant concept: "Safety" is a false promise that can only ever be grasped fleetingly, and the freedoms which define and preserve who we are as a nation are worth more than even the fulfillment of that promise, if somehow it could be realized.

bainter1212
February 11, 2013, 06:27 PM
Remind folks that most everyone agrees, we have a personal responsibility problem in this country. People stay on unemployment because it pays more than the jobs they could be doing right now.......parents don't hold their kids accountable to learn and do all of their schoolwork......if some folks want to make the choice to rely totally on the government for their own personal protection, and that of their families, then that is their choice in this free society. However if some responsible citizens, desire to take on the RESPONSIBILITY for their own and their families' protection, that should be a choice that they should be allowed to make.
As a society we need to empower responsible citizens. Gun control merely forces all citizens to conform to the lowest common denominator, namely those who are either unwilling or unable to protect themselves from harm.
History tells us that humans hurt each other. This history extends to the very beginnings of civilization, indeed we can extrapolate that evil behavior in this form occured down to the very roots of our evolution. This behavior predates guns, and if guns were totally eliminated from society, evil behavior would no doubt continue, only the means having changed.
You can't make a perfect society. What can be done, however, is to allow people to make the kind of choices that are defined by the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Life and the pursuit of happiness cannot occur without Liberty. True Liberty comes with inherent risks, not all of which can be 100% mitigated.
"Those who would surrender liberty, for security, deserve neither".

Good luck.

browneu
February 11, 2013, 06:29 PM
Don't let them differentiate crime committed using a gun from other crime.

For example, gun crime being lower in the UK than the US.

Crime is crime regardless of the instrument used.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

Telekinesis
February 11, 2013, 06:30 PM
I'm not as up on it as I used to be, but quite a few of the studies that anti's lean on for their talking points are based on pretty poor methodology - studies that would be laughed at if a student tried to cite them in a term paper.

In the study that "a gun at home is xx more times likely to kill you, a family member, or an acquaintance than protect you" they list "acquaintance" as anyone you have even seen before. Some guy in the corner of the coffee shop you see one day? yep, he qualifies as an acquaintance. I believe the author (Kellerman?) has publicly retracted and changed the results several times. Another study that cites a number of children killed per year or per day (can't remember specifically) includes 21 year old gang members as "kids". The Brady Campaign website used to cite which studies they were quoting from, so I'd work backwards until I found the original. Almost every study that they cite was created like this, where they chose a result and then found data to support that result.

This may also be a bit difficult for you to get on short notice, but I know that on my campus, there is a lot of animosity towards the "campus police" (really glorified security guards in a golf cart). They have a 50% hit rate against a vehicle in their one (poorly devised and executed) use of lethal force incident, a fact I always like to bring up when talking to people when they say police and security are highly trained and should be the only ones armed.

Finally, don't let them try and make you justify the reason for keeping assault weapons. Make them justify taking away the lawfully owned property of millions of Americans who have done nothing wrong. They are the ones proposing legislation, they should provide a legitimate reason with a measurable result for taking this action (and the fact that according to the Clinton administration the last AWB didn't work should help there too)

Good luck! And remember, there are quite a few college students who are interested in firearms, you're not necessarily going to have a completely hostile crowd.

Captain33036
February 11, 2013, 06:35 PM
Remind them that the only two things that make the US unique in the world are the second amendment to the consitution and Possee Comitatus.

If the govt limits a lawful citizens right to protect themselves, repeal of Possee Comitatus is simple. And then....Americans will be living under marshal law and military rule. Sounds extreme, but really, it is two short steps away.

Hope this helps

Best

J

USAF_Vet
February 11, 2013, 06:36 PM
Don't let them differentiate crime committed using a gun from other crime.

For example, gun crime being lower in the UK than the US.

Crime is crime regardless of the instrument used.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
This.


If they start getting on about gun crime this and gun crime that, ask them about other forms of violent crime that kill more people annually than guns. Knife crime is a much larger issue, as more people lose their live to knives than they do guns.

Guns like the Glock and the AR-15 are used because they are popular and common. If you ban those guns, other styles will take their place and those will become the popular guns.

Violent crime is not about the tool used. Taking away the tool does not solve the violence issue we are facing. In order to make any progress, we have to get at the root of the problem, a large part is mental health related.

19-3Ben
February 11, 2013, 06:38 PM
Ask to see sources for statistics. People make up all kinds of bogus stats. Call them out on it and don't let them get away with it. That's the only thing I can add to the excellent advice given above.

Good luck and represent us well. Remember that the antis expect some toothless white trash "ignant" type. Dress nicely and appropriately. Clean shaven, fresh shower, pressed/ironed clothing, etc... and speak well. Avoid slang and poor language (ie. "ain't" is NOT a word).
Just be someone who actually can sway the fence sitters rather that someone who tries to win this fight by taking the offensive tact and insulting those who disagree.

hdbiker
February 11, 2013, 06:43 PM
there is over 20,000 gun related laws on the books already,hows that working out ?hdbiker

GeneFrenkle
February 11, 2013, 06:50 PM
Our Founding Fathers had an excellent command of the English language and were very adept at using it. Start with the Declaration of Independence and point out the phrase "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The key word being "unalienable" which is very different than inalienable. Study these two words. Our Founding Fathers then enumerated the minimum human Rights in the Constitution as the Bill of Rights. Thus, these rights, to include the second are, by definition, inherent in being and cannot be removed.

G'dale Mike
February 11, 2013, 06:56 PM
Let us know how it goes!

Rocketmedic
February 11, 2013, 06:56 PM
Point out that firearms are equalizers between those who have force naturally (young, strong, numerous males) and everyone else.

Cite the notable decrease in crime that comes with CCW.

Think local- if possible, find a local criminal case and query the sheriff as to whether that crime could have been prevented with a legally-carried firearm.

Make the crowd connect today's "assault weapons bans" and gun control measures to tomorrow's removal of their wives' rape-prevention pistols, home-defense shotguns and hunting rifles.

Illustrate that there are plenty of legitimate sporting, home-defense and hunting uses for AR-type rifles, that there is no difference in function or capacity.

Do NOT play up the "so we can REBEL!" aspect of the 2A as the core of your debate. Correct, yes, but an uncomfortable truth. It's better to ease them to our side and use rebellion as a strong, silent backup.

Good luck!

Skyshot
February 11, 2013, 07:03 PM
Bring stats with you, ask them how many people get killed by cell phones when texting and driving. Yes it's different, but if you can't legislate stupidity you certainly can't legislate evil. So, lets say we ban Semi-auto's and large cap. magazines and Joe Evil decides he wants to kill a bunch of people. So, Joe Evil brings a pump shotgun loaded with #1 buckshot. Guess what, same result, So now we need to ban any firearm capable of holding more than one round. Now, that will stop Joe Evil. But you know what, Joe Evil is evil and Evil is hell bent on killing. Joe Evil WILL find a way no matter what. But why do you need a magazine that hold thirty rounds. Answer, sometimes Joe Evil has a gang with him.

palmrose2
February 11, 2013, 07:10 PM
The other panelists are the county Sheriff, the local school superintendent, a pastor/counselor/university instructor, and a clinical social worker/therapist.

I'll give you 10 to one odds that the clinical social worker is anti. The Sheriff is on record as being anti, and the professions of the others makes me believe that the odds are against them being with you, although the super might surprise me. Be prepared to be the ONLY pro gun panelist.

Shadow 7D
February 11, 2013, 07:11 PM
Point out that Police have NO DUTY TO PROTECT
http://www.endtimesreport.com/NO_AFFIRMATIVE_DUTY.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=341&issue_id=72004

Ask the Sheriff how is a police report from an individual who lawfully protects themselves by drawing a gun recorded?

Question him on his response time to a school shooting, ask him to estimate HOW MANY CLASSROOMS OF CHILDREN will be killed while waiting for his response...

Captain33036
February 11, 2013, 07:14 PM
Ask them how many rounds and what type of gun they want their wife or sister to have when some unknown number of thugs break into her home.

mrvco
February 11, 2013, 07:16 PM
Whoops, meant this for the Colorado thread.

bergmen
February 11, 2013, 07:16 PM
Some great points so far! Here is a copy of a letter I sent to the Santa Rosa Press Democrat that was published in 2008:

The United States Government need not fear a law abiding, armed society. This law abiding society, on the other hand, has every reason to fear a government that does not trust them to be armed.

The possession of a firearm, like any inanimate object, is not a causal factor in the commission of a gun related crime, it is incidental and supplemental to it. Remove a weapon from the hands of a murderous individual and you still have a murderous individual on your hands. But no law will ever remove these weapons from these individuals for the simple reason that criminals, by their very nature, do not abide by laws (gun control or otherwise). Gun control laws are only aimed at the law abiding, not criminals.

One thing is for sure, (and the available statistics confirm this) and that is if the potential victim of a lethal assault is known (or likely) to be armed, it serves as a great deterrent to the commission of these crimes. Criminals don’t like to get shot anymore than their potential victims do. But it is high time that the law abiding citizen be allowed to defend themselves appropriately. And it is also high time for all levels of government to trust us to do so.

Feel free to use any or all.

Dan

locnload
February 11, 2013, 07:20 PM
WC145, I admire your courage for stepping up to this task. Part of me envies you the other part feels sorry for the fact that you will probably be out numbered by outright leftist and people who just want to appear "reasonable" but have no idea what they are talking about. That said, here are a couple points I would bring up, mostly geared toward the Sherriff.

1. Ask the good Sherriff if his department has the budget and is prepared to take on the addirional administrative duties, record keeping, and enforcement of all these new laws, and what will that do to their ability to deal with actuall criminals?

2. In light of the fact that millions of citizens have been depleting the supply of rifles, semi-auto pistols, and ammo and are highly unlikely to voluntarily "turn them in", does he plan to enforce the law evenly or "selectively" against certain people he doesn't like?

3. Ask the school Superintendant what his opinion of armed security in the schools is. If he says he is against it, ask him what he would do if they have an activer shooter. He will of course say call 911 and lock down the building. And you can reply, so you would call for the help of people with guns, and trap the students in the shooting gallery, is that correct?

I could go on and on but I have to leave for work. :(

I love your comment about Doing something is not the same as doing the right thing! Best of luck with the panel. :)

Zardaia
February 11, 2013, 07:25 PM
If they try to downplay any slipery slope argument point out ny. Already had awb/mag ban, now even stricter and no grandfathering. Get rid of it or become a criminal. Also the fact that feinstien herslef has said she'd ban em all if she could. Show the difference between logic/reason and emotion, feeling vs being safe.

denton
February 11, 2013, 07:32 PM
Couple of thoughts, possibly useful...

From the Heller decision:

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this
country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the
many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun
ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the
District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that
problem, including some measures regulating handguns,
see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy
choices off the table.

In other words, if you think an armed populace is a bad policy decision, you are little over two centuries late to the meeting where that decision was made. Our Founders knew the pros and cons of having an armed populace, and chose to have it. Since Heller, it is settled law. Debating it as a fundamental policy decision at this point is fruitless.

Heller and McDonald also took an AWB off the table. The Supreme Court ruled that government cannot prohibit classes of arms that are commonly held for lawful purposes. A new AWB will likely not survive its first brush with reality.

At one point in the recent debate, one lawmaker scoffed, "Why do you need 30 bullets to kill a deer?" This is so wrong on so many levels. The speaker obviously does not understand that 2A is not about hunting, or much about the practicalities of pest animal control, stomping around in the bushes looking for jackrabbits and coyotes, and is probably too ignorant to be writing laws about firearms.... not that that has ever stopped anyone. But, worse, it is a fundamentally wrong question. It is not up to the right holder to justify exercise of the right. (Magazines, being an essential working part of most firearms are as protected as firearms are.)

The appropriate question is not one directed to the right holder. It is one directed to the legislator: What is there about an 11 round magazine that requires regulation, when a 10 round magazine does not? If a legislative body cannot answer that question, then they cannot make and enforce a law limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds. There must be some meaningful functional difference that makes that 11 round magazine more dangerous to the public than a 10 round magazine. I don't think that difference exists.

I'd tell the story of the 12 year old girl in OK who was home alone. She heard an intruder trying to break into the house, and called her mother. Her mother instructed her to retrieve the family's 40 caliber and hide in a closet, with instructions to shoot the intruder if she was discovered. She did exactly as she was instructed. She hid, she was discovered, and she shot the intruder.

Make no mistake about it: When you are talking about restricting firearms, you are talking about restricting that girl's access to the tool that probably prevented her rape and murder. If more permissive gun laws saved only her life, wouldn't it be worth it?

Look at the balance sheet. Every year in this country, there are between 800,000 and 2,500,000 defensive gun uses. There are about 30,000 people who are killed every year by gun mis-use. Most of those are suicides. The critical error in the thinking of many gun banners is that they think that if these people did not have access to firearms, those homicides and suicides would be avoided. The best evidence is that they would not. Malaysia provides the death penalty for simple possession of a firearm and one round of ammunition, and they have a homicide rate that exceeds Europe's. There is practically no private firearm ownership in Japan, and they manage to commit suicide about twice as often as we do. In any event, the net result of firearm ownership is less crime.

Last thought: Average number of people killed at attempted mass shootings in the US, when nobody intervenes = 14.3. Average number of people killed when someone on the scene intervenes = 2.3.

Yes, guns do cost lives. But they save vastly more.

longknife12
February 11, 2013, 07:34 PM
You might keep in mind that even Joe Biden admits that existing laws are not being enforced/prosecuted....the ones proposed will only harm the rest of us, not the bad guy!
Dan

JayBird
February 11, 2013, 07:36 PM
I recently wrote this up to someone arguing the whole 'need' thing with me.

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

Well, first off. I have hunted with semi automatic rifles with what you would call 'high capacity magazines'. It is perfectly legal in my state on private land. And even encouraged when hunting feral hog. They are a non native nuisance creature which do a lot of damage to peoples property and crops...as well as can be dangerous to people. So, no. I wont admit that these guns 'arent really for hunting' ...millions of semi automatic rifles are used for hunting and pest control in this country every year.

An AR15 is just one type of semi automatic rifle. Mechanically, it really is no different than a ruger mini 14 ranch rifle or even a ruger 10/22. I dont know if that means anything to you, but to someone that understands firearms...it should.

As far as 'needs'. First, let me say. Be leery with changing the 'Bill of Rights' to the 'Bill of Needs'.

But, from a self defense standpoint? Particularly an AR15 with a standard magazine(to me, a 20 or 30 round magazine is standard) is lightweight, easy to maneuver in tight places, easy to maintain on target for follow up shots, reliable and accurate. What else would someone want in a self defense firearm?

If I was the victim of a home invasion, there is no other firearm I would rather have in my hands. Can you guarantee that I will always be faced with one attacker? What about someone living out in a rural location, where the police maybe 20 minutes or more to get there(not to mention that even in an urban area, the police wont typically get there in time except to put you in a body bag and write up a report).

If you think home invasions never happen, you simply need to look them up. I wish this father of two had an AR15 in his hands when 4 armed thugs broke into his home.
http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/article/267653/250/St-Petersburg-Police-arrest-murder-suspect-Charles-Stone

Or how about this fairly famous story. At least it was in Florida. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Byrd_and_Melanie_Billings 7 armed men invaded the home. SEVEN. How many bullets in a gun is enough in your opinion in such a situation?

Ill ask you a question. Say you were at my house, and I had a revolver and an AR15 with a 30 round magazine in my bedroom. And we were sitting there watching a movie when say 4-7 armed men broke in. Which gun would you rather me run to...to protect you in such a situation? My revolver holding 6 shots, or my ar15 holding 30?

1 old 0311-1
February 11, 2013, 07:41 PM
There have been many innovations since the Egyptian army first used firearms in 1250. When the Second Amendment was written it did NOT specify that civilians/Militia should be restricted to any of the earlier designs, matchlock, wheellock,etc.
So the argument that the Founding Fathers didn't want us having first class weapons don't hold water.

Queen_of_Thunder
February 11, 2013, 07:42 PM
1. When the subject that our founders didnt envision AR's remind them that our founders had access to staye of the art firearms and cannon.

2. Ask if the others email had the statement about security being present and the comment about it bdi g a gun free zone.

3. Remind them that the AR15 is not a military weapon but nothing morethan a semi automatic rifle.

4. I would ask why the attack on the Bill of Rights.

5. I would remind them that without the 2nd there is nothing go protect the rest of the Bill of Rights.

gbw
February 11, 2013, 08:09 PM
Precious little good advice so far, here's my 2cents:

I've never heard their answer to this, and I'd really love to:

First read 2A and then remind them of Heller & MacDonald.

Then ask each exactly what they want for gun control law. Very specifically.

That is, ask exactly what laws they'd impose if it were totally up to each of them, so that if they got everything they could possibly want they would consider the gun control problem solved and will publically commit to refuse to support any further gun laws.

If they cannot answer this they are not prepared properly have no business in the debate. If they can, then at least you know what you're debating.

skeeziks
February 11, 2013, 08:42 PM
They are convinced that the AR15 with its "High Cap Clips" are what enable the crazies to commit the Mass Shootings.
Telling them that these individuals would simply "find another way" goes in 1 ear and right out the other. Nothing will ever change that sheriffs mind.

ohwell
February 11, 2013, 08:58 PM
Remind them that Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation, explain to them thats why the criminals have very little fear of the common citizen, because they know the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. Chicago's murder and crime rate is very high and police cannot possibly arrive on time in most cases to stop the crime, they are reduced to investigating and cleaning up the mess.

avs11054
February 11, 2013, 09:11 PM
Sorry if this has already been brought up. I read half of the posts, but don't really have time to read the other half.

If one of them mentions "reasonable" or "common sense" gun control and then brings up the issue of 10-round magazines, ask what makes 10-rounds reasonable or common sense and if they have facts to back that up or if it is just opinion. Ask why 8 or 12 rounds is not reasonable. Make sure to note that New York used to have a 10 round limit, and they recently reduced it to 7 because the 10 round magazine was not reducing crime. This validates the slipery slope argument. If the sheriff responds to the reducing the magazine issue as a way to prevent people from shooting so many bullets, ask him how quickly he and his deputies are able to change magazines and why a BG wouldn't be able to change magazines that quickly as well.

Ask them how a flash hider, pistol grip, collapsable stock, or bayonet lug increases the lethality of a gun, and if they give a response, ask them to cite their info. If they say something like "a collapsable stock makes a gun more concealable," ask them how a stock that collapses 3.5 inches makes a gun that is 35.5 inches more concealable (that stat came from colt's website).

Make sure you note the common use clause in Heller. The follow that up by noting that AR-15s are the most "commonly used" rifle today.

If somebody brings up the "people don't need these guns for hunting deer" argument, bring up that the second amendment was not intended for hunting. Also note that a google search can reveal that these guns are very effective for hunting deer. Also make sure to tell them that the .223 is one of the least powerful rifle cartridges available, and the reason why most people choose not to use it for hunting is not because it is too powerful, but because it is not powerful enough.

This is all I can think of now. I will try and think of more and post later.

Oh...some more that I thought of. If they say something like these guns would not stand a chance against our modern military, make sure to point out that small arms have been giving our military hell for the past half century. While a bunch of people armed with AR-15s are no match against an F35, they could takeover the base that the F35s launch from.

If they argue that these guns were made to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amound of time possible, let them know that lever action rifles were intended for the same purpose. Ask them if they support banning lever action rifles.

OneWound
February 11, 2013, 10:08 PM
If I remember correctly, in the 1939 Supreme Court case: Miller Vs United States: The Supreme Court ruled "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

hammerklavier
February 11, 2013, 10:20 PM
It is not just that liberty comes with inherent risks -- life comes with inherent risks. Do you think living in soviet Russia was not without risks? Or Communist China? Or that being a slave was without risks?

Contrary to Anne Frank's odd assertion, people are inherently evil -- a Utopian society where there are not murders, oppression, violent drug users, dangerously insane, and so forth; is unattainable.

greenmtnguy
February 11, 2013, 10:28 PM
IF the sheriff claims that only LEO should have semi-automatic rifles or magazines of greater than 10 rounds, ask him if he and all his deputies would then lock up ALL of their duty weapons in a big safe in the sherrif's office and NOT carry ANY of those weapons when off duty, or traveling to/from home. This includes any longarms carried in the cruiser. When he is not on the clock, he doesn't need anything other than what any other citizen can carry, by his logic. See what his response is..

Justin
February 11, 2013, 10:48 PM
If AR15s are truly nothing more than weapons of war, then there is no reason to issue them to peace officers.

Why would any legislator not apply such a ban to cops as well as citizens?

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3sn6wl/

beatledog7
February 11, 2013, 11:24 PM
i posted this on my blog a while back; feel free to use it:

"If I posted something in my blog or anywhere else that is suddenly illegal to say, could I be charged with having said the now illegal words? If I once attended a church that’s suddenly been outlawed, can I go to jail for having worshipped there?

Arresting someone for exercising his rights under the First Amendment is no different from arresting someone doing so per the Second Amendment. The day we allow government to pass laws or issue tyrannical edicts that transform huge swaths of the population into criminals with the stroke of a pen is the beginning of the end of the American culture our Founders intended.

What folks need to realize is that once you acknowledge government’s power to suddenly and unconstitutionally disrupt a practice you don’t like, you have given it free rein to suddenly and unconstitutionally disrupt a practice you do like. The next president might decide to outlaw the medicine that keeps you alive or the vehicle that’s in your driveway, and it’ll be too late to say, 'Hey, wait a minute…'”

Archangel14
February 11, 2013, 11:42 PM
"there are millions, MILLIONS, of lawful guns owners who didn't commit any crimes with their guns yesterday. Or the day before. Or within the year, or decade, or two decades before."

holdencm9
February 11, 2013, 11:52 PM
If anyone says it is paranoid to arm yourself against home invasion, isn't it paranoid to legislate for school shootings, which are far less common?

Hope it goes/went well. Can't wait to hear.

denton
February 12, 2013, 12:10 AM
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/Hardy%20Cruz%20Letter.pdf

Here is a useful letter from David Hardy, a highly regarded 2A attorney, that speaks to the issue raised by Justin and grnmtnguy. Hardy was very influential in the Heller case. Here's the money quote:

Police and “civilians” own firearms for the same reason: self-defense against
criminal activity. It is difficult to justify any legislation that would bind one but not
the other, when both have the same purpose and need. That is to say, if law
enforcement officials need an AR-15, or a 20 round magazine to defend
themselves, it is hard to explain why a non-LEO would not.
Even less explicable are laws which exempt not only serving LEOs, but also
retired ones. Retirement includes disability retirement, which includes disability
due to mental status.

WC145
February 14, 2013, 12:43 PM
Thanks again to all of you for the ideas, links, and info. The forum was Tuesday night and it went really well. It was well attended and by far the majority of the audience were community members (the local fish and game club was well represented), there was only a hand full of students. I was surprised and pleased to find that the other panel members weren't a bunch of liberal witch hunters. The school superintendent was very reasonable and was frank about their security efforts and discussions, including armed security and armed school personnel. The pastor/counselor/college professor was pro-gun, knowledgeable about weapons, and teaches an ethics course in which all of his students feel that there is no need for more gun laws and that we would be better served by enforcing the ones we have now!! Even the social worker was pretty neutral on guns and emphasized the need for better funding for mental health care and the need for mental health and personality issues to be better recognized and for those people that need it to get better care. In fact the only person on the panel that really had anything anti to say was the sheriff!

To make a long story short I will highlight some of the things the sheriff had to say as well as the points I tried to make. At the end of this post I'll have a link to the archives page of the UMM website, they will have the video of the forum available there in a few days.

A number of people took advantage of the forum to go after the sheriff for the things that he'd said in the newpaper interviews. He was very wishy washy and back pedaled on most of his comments but he still stood by his personal feelings that we should have an "assault weapons" ban, only cops and military should have "assault weapons", it's too easy to get a CCW permit and should require more training, and if it an AWB will "save just one life" it's worth doing. He is against armed school personnel but for school resource officers (he used to be one) and says that we should legislate money for them. However, regardless of his personal feelings, he will enforce the law as written and won't do anything unconstitutional.

When I had opportunities to speak I emphasized the need for personal, familial, and community responsibility. I told the audience that they are the true first responders and would face the criminals before any LEOs and that they should be as well armed as the sheriff's deputies that will show up after the fact with their AR15s and 30rd mags. I agreed with the need for armed security in schools and suggested that instead of waiting to legislate money that will probably never be there, we look to our communities to take responsibility for our schools and children and ask LEOs (active and retired) to volunteer their time to act as school security. I told them that my kids go to the local elementary school and I'd be glad to give a few days a month and said that we have lots of LEOs with children and grandchildren going to our schools that feel the same way. I emphasized that we could have armed, experienced, law enforcement personnel on site in days rather than wait months or years for the state or federal government to act. I also reminded the sheriff that 4 states have constitutional carry and do not require CC permits and they have not seen any increase in gun crime since those laws were enacted. There was more but I'm not going to bore you with all the details. Suffice it to say that I actually got a nice round of applause at one point, I think the people were liking what I had to say.

So, I was nervous about speaking in front of all those people but I was confident because I'd prepared well (thanks in no small part to all of you) and I was able to make the points I had hoped to when I volunteered to do this. Also, I encourage all of you to get involved where you can and to act on your convictions, you'll feel better for it and might actually make a difference.

If you are interested in watching the video of the forum, go to this link - http://machias.edu/archived-videos - it should be up in a few days. If you do watch it please come back to this thread and let us know what you think.

Sam1911
February 14, 2013, 12:56 PM
Awesome! Nice job! Kudos for your guts in getting up there and doing this, and congrat's on a successful effort!

bainter1212
February 14, 2013, 04:02 PM
Great job! Thanks for standing up and speaking for all of us.....keep up the good work.

Akita1
February 14, 2013, 04:29 PM
WC - very impressive; people like you make our collective efforts worthwhile. A prepared and thoughtful demonstration of well-planned positions and recommendations, backed by credibly-sourced facts, is always more effective than "cold dead handing" the debate. People will take you seriously when you have common vested interests (abiding by law, kids in school, patriotism, etc.) and are not just there to stand against the tide.

Much respect to you and thank you for your efforts.

Captain33036
February 14, 2013, 04:56 PM
I told the audience that they are the true first responders and would face the criminals before any LEOs and that they should be as well armed as the sheriff's deputies that will show up after the fact with their AR15s and 30rd mags.

GREAT POINT! Great job. Thanks

RetiredUSNChief
February 14, 2013, 05:14 PM
Congratulations!

I'm looking forward to more details when you post them.

The ole "if it saves just one life" argument irritates me to no end, because it's essentially based on a logical fallicy...that safety can be an absolute.

The good thing about this argument is that it cuts both ways...because we CAN show where having these guns has saved many lives. Therefore "if it saves just one life" is just as powerful an argument, if not more so, for our own perspective.

Just have the examples to back it up to counter the anti's examples of their viewpoints. And don't be afraid to use historical milestones as well.

:):)

bergmen
February 14, 2013, 05:23 PM
Outstanding report, WC. Thanks for stepping out there and articulating excellent points, very, very nice!

I look forward to watching the video!

Dan

OilyPablo
February 14, 2013, 05:31 PM
Way to go. Good on you!

When our national leaders say "national conversation on gun rights", this is NOT the way they would want it to go, me thinks. In fact I must admit when the President calls for such things, I KNOW how he wants to stack the deck.

CB900F
February 14, 2013, 05:37 PM
WC;

I'm under a time constraint & didn't have time to read all the previous posts. I apologise if this is a repeat.

Please mention the example of the failed Canadian National Gun Registration. Initially budgeted at 2 million a year. When repealed in 2011 the cost was well over 60 million for the last fiscal year. With current U.S. government spending out of control, how can we afford this nonsense? With the obviously plastic number given that at best they might have gotten 50% of the guns on paper. With a society raised in the English law tradition, not our rebellious one.

900F

Hokkmike
February 14, 2013, 09:23 PM
Well done WC!

medalguy
February 14, 2013, 11:13 PM
I ask anyone favoring an "assault weapons" ban what kind of safety increase they would expect from the passage and enforcement of that law vs the dollar cost to implement all the provisions, and remind them that according to the FBI crime statistics for 2010, the last year available, that more people were murdered with hammers and other blunt instruments than with the so-called "assault weapons". What are they going to do about those murders? And is the proposed safety increase worth the cost in both dollars and loss of liberty??

Sounds like a good forum and worthwhile.

WC145
February 19, 2013, 11:51 AM
The video is finally available at this link if anyone is interested in watching - University of Maine at Machias | Archived Videos (http://machias.edu/archived-videos)

SoCalNoMore
February 19, 2013, 12:12 PM
When I had opportunities to speak I emphasized the need for personal, familial, and community responsibility. I told the audience that they are the true first responders and would face the criminals before any LEOs and that they should be as well armed as the sheriff's deputies that will show up after the fact with their AR15s and 30rd mags. I agreed with the need for armed security in schools and suggested that instead of waiting to legislate money that will probably never be there, we look to our communities to take responsibility for our schools and children and ask LEOs (active and retired) to volunteer their time to act as school security. I told them that my kids go to the local elementary school and I'd be glad to give a few days a month and said that we have lots of LEOs with children and grandchildren going to our schools that feel the same way. I emphasized that we could have armed, experienced, law enforcement personnel on site in days rather than wait months or years for the state or federal government to act. I also reminded the sheriff that 4 states have constitutional carry and do not require CC permits and they have not seen any increase in gun crime since those laws were enacted. There was more but I'm not going to bore you with all the details. Suffice it to say that I actually got a nice round of applause at one point, I think the people were liking what I had to say.

So, I was nervous about speaking in front of all those people but I was confident because I'd prepared well (thanks in no small part to all of you) and I was able to make the points I had hoped to when I volunteered to do this. Also, I encourage all of you to get involved where you can and to act on your convictions, you'll feel better for it and might actually make a difference.

If you are interested in watching the video of the forum, go to this link - http://machias.edu/archived-videos - it should be up in a few days. If you do watch it please come back to this thread and let us know what you think.
Excellent work WC, very well done.

If you enjoyed reading about "Going to be a panelist at a "Gun Contol Forum" tomorrow night - any talking points?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!