1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by WC145, Feb 11, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 1 old 0311-1

    1 old 0311-1 member

    Nov 5, 2012
    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.
  2. Queen_of_Thunder

    Queen_of_Thunder member

    Jul 28, 2012
    Where God purifies the soul. The West Texas desert
    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.
  3. gbw

    gbw Member

    Feb 11, 2009
    Deep South
    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.
  4. skeeziks

    skeeziks Member

    May 4, 2010
    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.
  5. ohwell

    ohwell Member

    Aug 7, 2007
    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.
  6. avs11054

    avs11054 Member

    Jul 23, 2010
    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.
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2013
  7. OneWound

    OneWound Member

    Dec 23, 2012
    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."
  8. hammerklavier

    hammerklavier Member

    Sep 13, 2009
    North Carolina
    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.
  9. greenmtnguy

    greenmtnguy Member

    Oct 30, 2004
    New England
    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..
  10. Justin

    Justin Moderator Emeritus

    Dec 29, 2002
    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?

  11. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Jun 18, 2011
    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…'”
  12. Archangel14

    Archangel14 Member

    Mar 16, 2012
    "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."
  13. holdencm9

    holdencm9 Member

    Oct 25, 2011
    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.
  14. denton

    denton Member

    Feb 22, 2011

    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:

  15. WC145

    WC145 Member

    Oct 28, 2006
    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.
  16. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Oct 22, 2007
    Central PA
    Awesome! Nice job! Kudos for your guts in getting up there and doing this, and congrat's on a successful effort!
  17. bainter1212

    bainter1212 Member

    Sep 17, 2012
    Great job! Thanks for standing up and speaking for all of us.....keep up the good work.
  18. Akita1

    Akita1 Member

    Jan 4, 2013
    Hell (FL)
    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.
  19. Captain33036

    Captain33036 Member

    Sep 20, 2009
    SE FL
    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
  20. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Jul 9, 2012
    SC (Home), VA (Work)

    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.

  21. bergmen

    bergmen Member.

    Feb 14, 2011
    Ukiah, California
    Outstanding report, WC. Thanks for stepping out there and articulating excellent points, very, very nice!

    I look forward to watching the video!

  22. OilyPablo

    OilyPablo Member

    Sep 2, 2012
    WA State (NOT in Seattle)
    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.
  23. CB900F

    CB900F Member

    Feb 22, 2003

    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.

  24. Hokkmike

    Hokkmike Member

    Feb 28, 2006
    Sullivan County PA
    Well done WC!
  25. medalguy

    medalguy Member

    Mar 20, 2009
    New Mexico
    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.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page