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

I've been debating with a few anti gun people lately

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by lionking, Jan 18, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Guy B. Meredith

    Guy B. Meredith Member

    Dec 25, 2002
    Salem, Oregon
    That stuff about "saving one child" infers that you as an individual are liable or responsible, violent because you have a firearm. My personal response is "Did my gun kill any kids? Then why do you insist on punishing me for that crime?" It's personal and we need to be seen as individuals, not statistics.

    On the other hand, a few years back I got irritated at an acquaintance who noticed my NRA sticker on my car with a stuffy comment and I replied in an extremely sarcastic tone, "Yeah, I'm in the NRA. Feeling badly as I haven't killed my quota of kids today." Having the stupidity of her comment pushed in her face ended that conversation.
  2. justice06rr

    justice06rr Member

    Oct 7, 2011
    My only advice is not to argue or debate with them.

    Have an informal discussion instead, and educate them about firearms. If they are still firm about being anti- , stop and move on.
  3. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Nov 28, 2006
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    That can be summarized as,

    "If you think the government should still have guns, you're not anti-gun; you're pro-tyranny.
  4. DeepSouth

    DeepSouth Member

    Jan 14, 2009
    Heart of Dixie

    I also like to point out that any Ol' civilian could then (and now) own an infantry cannon with all the balls and grape shot they could afford, not to mention all the black powder they could afford. Even if it were TONS, it was still legal. Then I like to challage them to find ONE weapon that was used in the revolutionary war that a common man couldn't own. If there were any I don't know about them and apparently nobody else does either.

    Posted via iPhone
  5. Kiln

    Kiln Member

    Mar 3, 2011
    Alright here's the argument I use against the "nuke" or "modern arms are more dangerous than the founding fathers could have imagined" argument:

    The framers never imagined a weapon capable of destroying an entire city or cities and therefore there was nothing about it in the constitution. I do however, doubt that they would've been okay with the government having this kind of power in the first place.

    Firearms on the other hand are specifically mentioned under the second amendment. The founders were comfortable with ownership of potentially dangerous weapons at the time and they were working on them even then.

    Cannons and grenades were privately owned and unregulated at the time. They were not afraid of firearms. In fact, at that time you were considered dishonorable if you carried a firearm CONCEALED instead of open carrying. Now that open carry has been demonized and forced into the closet, concealed carry is necessary.

    Gun owners are everywhere in America. They make up every race, religion, and party. The vast majority of gun owners never commit a crime with their firearm despite there being millions of guns out there.

    In some places the response time of police officers is over 20 minutes. Even if you live inside of a large city, three minutes is a long time if you're unarmed and afraid.

    People need to be able to defend themselves. The framers never intended for you to have to sit back and hope the police arrived in time. They understood the right to defend to be a basic human right that was beyond questioning. If they could only see what the political system has become, they'd be sick with grief over the people trying their best to find a workaround to the US Constitution and to disarm the very people that the constitution was written to protect.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page