Exclusive Arms Debate - this should be interesting

[WAGCEVP]

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <info@XXXXXXXXX
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 1:13 PM
Subject: Exclusive Arms Debate


> Hi,
>
> I just wanted to inform you of an exclusive gun control debate at
> www.independentbias.com
> Angel Shamaya founder of KeepandBearArms.com battles Blaine Rummel of The
> Coalition to Stop Gun Violence in the main envent. Also in this week's debate,
> Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America sends in an exclusive editorial. Please
> stop by and tell us what you think and feel free to link our site to your readers.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Ja Lang G. Greene
> Founder / Editor Independent Bias
> www.independentbias.com
> [email protected]
> "An open mind, makes the correct choice"

 

[Drjones]

From the interview with Blain Rummel, Coalition to stop gun violence: http://www.independentbias.com/blaine_rummel.htm

Research has shown conclusively that adding a gun to a situation increases the likelihood of violence.

You mean like if someone attacks me, and I shoot them?

And that is bad???

For example, in abusive relationships, assaults that involve firearms are 12 times more likely to result in death than
those that do not involve guns.

I am terribly interested to know if the beater or the beatee dies.

And keeping a gun in your home makes it three times more likely that you or a person
you care about will be shot by another family member or intimate partner.

That is pure BS and a complete lie, as admitted by the author of that "statistic" himself.

But what else do you expect from leftists...

 

[geekWithA.45]

General Impressions:

This wasn't really a "debate", wherein people are given opportunities to refute each other's points. It was more like "competing position papers".


Angel does a good job delivering undiluted truth. Unfortunately, I don't think the general public is really ready to hear his message couched in these terms. (Well, at least the general public as represented by the Dark & Fascist State of NJ)

Blaine Rummel's interview is indicative of a gun bigot in deep stealth "see how reasonable I am" mode, which indicates that our enemies have truly learned that their message isn't acceptable, and that their wares must be rendered palatable in centrist terms, thus making our task harder.


Placing myself in the mindframe of an uninformed neutral centrist, (Don't try that at home, kids! I'm a professional psychic stuntman!) I'd have to admit that while Angel is likely to win some over with his undiluted rhetoric, the vast bulk of folks who aren't invested in the issue would side with the gun bigots in slightly greater numbers than with us.

 

[Moparmike]

That guy (Blain) is good. He really has a way with spin and cloaking his words.

IB: Is there anything you would like to add in closing?

BR: In a recent speech to the Commonwealth Club of California, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said that the gun lobby has embarked on a strategy of "forced polarity." The NRA wants the American people to believe that the only choice is between Second Amendment freedoms and gun laws that erode them.

This is a false choice. As stated earlier, gun laws pose no threat to our freedoms, no matter which interpretation of the Second Amendment one holds. In fact, ensuring that only law-abiding citizens own guns enhances our freedoms. Americans should be wary of the gun lobby's strategy, and know that their overwhelming support for sensible gun laws is not only right-headed, but patriotic as well.

You sure do have a weird definition of "no threat to freedoms," "sensible," "right-headed," and "patriotic."

 

[strambo]

You sure do have a weird definition of "no threat to freedoms," "sensible," "right-headed," and "patriotic."

And "overwhelming." A lot of former Congressmen and Al Gore might dissagree that support for gun control is "overwhelming" these days.

 

[Mulliga]

See, the thing is, Angel Shamaya and most of us here on THR are no-compromise supporters of the RKBA. I'd bet most of us would like no background checks on gun sales at all, no restrictions on full-auto weapons, no license for concealed carry, etc.

This message, however, is way too extreme for the general public. Just as gun control activists cloak their total victim disarmament programs in fun terms like "gun safety," we sadly have to sugar-coat our views sometimes to reach a wider audience. Mr. Shamaya was a little too extreme in that interview - a cooler-sounding interview would have went over better with fence-sitters IMHO.

 

[Stickjockey]

And keeping a gun in your home makes it three times more likely that you or a person
you care about will be shot by another family member or intimate partner.

Isn't this something like saying that driving a car will increase the likelihood of your being involved in an auto accident?

Americans should be wary of the gun lobby's strategy, and know that their overwhelming support for sensible gun laws is not only right-headed, but patriotic as well.

Then why is it that the 'grabbers are always saying things like, "If I could get 51 votes, I'd say 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.'" and, "We've seen the nose. Now it's time to let in the rest of the camel."

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

This message, however, is way too extreme for the general public.

How do we "compromise" our way back to our rights? They want more of our rights. How do we compromise that? I think the gun lobby has learned that if you stay on message, and keep repeating it, then it will become ingrained. Just like the left does.