My email to an anti. Looking for comments/suggestions before I send

[PirateJoe]

An anti-gun guy and I got into a little debate about the right to bear arms. It started off as a debate on whether the second amendment meant that the government could not constitutionally restrict any gun ownership at all, but he is against gun ownership, and, well, I never pass up an opportunity.

If you notice anything striking, please comment. This guy's pretty picky. At least it keeps me honest.

---------


> I support the law, even law I don't like. I vote against bad
> legislators. I don't advocate armed revolt, assassination, lynch
> mobs, etc..


I in no way advocate lynch mobs and armed revolts except in the worst case scenario...i.e. late 1930's germany or stalinist russia. If this ban passed, i would not start an uprising. However, it is bills like these that, cumulatively, make it nearly impossible to even attempt an armed uprising if it were to come to that. Its not an eventuality i like to think of, but it is not impossible by any stretch of the imagination, as history has taught us. I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

> You quote from Jefferson's political speeches and letters, which
> amount to political 'hot air' then and now. Interesting words, but
> words that carry tiny weight relative to two century of law and legal
> precedent.


Hmm, I would not be so sure of this. If it was really all hot air, I doubt the founding fathers would have thought enough of it to make an amendment that clearly fits the intentions in the letters and speeches.

> [on how current gun laws, esp the AWB, defeats the purpose of the 2A]
> You think so, but the US Supreme Court consistently disagrees with you.
> The US Supreme Court carries more weight than you do.


The supreme court is not infallible. Hell, no government institution is infallible. However, part of what makes democracy and this country great, is that if an idea is found to not to be for the betterment of society, or if it doesn't work, it can be changed.


> Imagine a country of 250,000,000 people, each with a unique idea as to
> which laws are frivolous. Each convinced that they personally are
> right, and that other people are wrong. (Like you feel about me.)


If they all had guns, no one would try any funny business ;-)


> Each of the 250,000,000 willing to take the law into their own hands.
> What would that be like? Anarchy.
>
> Then imagine the same situation with 250,000,000 firearms. Bloody anarchy.


First off, no one is advocating taking the law into their own hands over every little thing they disagree with. I, personally, have been fighting this [the AWBII] the legal way, with letters and phone calls to various congress critters. the 2A is a last-ditch provision, but one that MUST remain, not only to protect us from our own government, but, on a smaller scale, to protect our homes and families from various criminals.

Now, I'd like your imagination to do a bit of work. Imagine a government that is no longer at the bidding of the people. Totalitarianism.
Now imagine the same situation with a disarmed populace. Bloody Totalitarianism.

> A system of laws and courts (even imperfect), gives us peace, law and order.
>
> Eliminate respect for laws and courts (even imperfect), we would get
> anarchy and lynch mobs.


And this is a system of laws and courts I am thankful for. But when these system of courts and laws stop giving us peace, law, and order, and instead give us martial law, bloody pogroms, and oppression, well, I'll be glad i've got my 30 caliber life insurance policy.

See, the thing is, These bans do nothing. They do not stop crime. They only hinder the law abiding citizen. For this exercise, we'll go your way. Sure. The government legally can say which guns we can and can't own. That doesn't mean this is something that it should do. A government that bans everything not explicitly protected by the constitution (and even things that are), is a government I don't want to be governed by.

Citizen gun ownership is a good thing, no matter which way you cut it. Not only for the direct positives, such as being able to protect yourself from home invasion, or a mugger on the street, but also for the indirect ones. A populace that buys into having inanimate objects taken away, simply for "their own good", is not one that will last long. This logic will be applied to a number of different things, as it already is in places like Britain. This means less freedom for your average american. It also means admitting that the state is somehow better equipped to run your life than you are (You aren't responsible enough to own a gun, but we, the government, are). I think you and I can both agree that this is not anywhere near the ideal way to live.

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

so? comments, advice appreciated.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Well, let me see . . .

I support the law, even law I don't like.

Really? So you're okay with the Constitution, then. Which is, in fact, the supreme law of the land. And the Bill of Rights, which were *required* for the ratification of the Constitution, meaning they are *senior to* the language in the original articles of said Constitution. Thus, where there is any conflict between an article of the Constitution and one of the Amendments, then the Amendment takes precedence.

Please see the *law* called the Second Amendment. If you do, in fact, support the law, then this discussion is really quite done, and there is nothing else to debate.

It's the law. Q.E.D.

* * *

Okay, a little pedantry: capitalize the proper names. Stalinist Russia and so on.

* * *

Interesting words, but words that carry tiny weight relative to two century of law and legal precedent.

Good. Then please see the Second Amendment. This is actual *law* not opinion about law.

US Supreme Court consistently disagrees with you.

False. The Supreme Court holds that the Second Amendement is an individual right. The SCOTUS has nimbly avoided any actual confrontation on the 2nd Amendment for decades.

. . . take the law into their own hands.

The law, in fact, belongs in the hands of the citizens. It is their law. It is up to them to enforce it. Once a law has been violated, then the judicial system comes into play. The *prevention* of a crime, however (which factually *enforces* the law) is the job of the citizen. Judgement and punishment lies with the judiciary.

A system of laws and courts (even imperfect), gives us peace, law and order.

By whose measure? We have laws against robbery, rape, and murder. Unsurprisingly we still have those crimes. In fact, the laws disarming the common citizen lead to more crime, since the criminal knows his intended victim is unarmed.

* * *

Otherwise your remarks look fine.

Make sure you run your reply through a spell checker before sending it. Pedantic pretenders just love to attack the writer through the device of "you can't even spell, thus your argument is flawed" and other ad hominem style attacks.

He's off on this assertion that OMG there will be ANARCHY if we don't regulate everything to death; thank God there are LAWS!

Fine. Laws are okay until they get in the way of civil liberties and personal safety.

It speaks volumes of one's regard for his fellow man that he *knows* nobody can be trusted without LAWS.

The framers knew this, and constructed a bulwark against that thinking in crafting the Bill of Rights. The BoR says, in effect, whatever laws you make within the framework provided by the Constitution, these things here are off limits. You don't get to encroach on these with your precious laws.

And, within the BoR, they planted a sign:

NO TRESPASSING
BEWARE OF GUN​

Just some thoughts.

Hope they're useful.

 

[Axman]

I support the law, even law I don't like.

As posted by Arfin, The Constitution is THE LAW!

I don't advocate armed revolt

So you're okay with concentration camps and gas chambers? Let me know how that'd work out for you.

You quote from Jefferson's political speeches and letters, which amount to political 'hot air' then and now. Interesting words, but words that carry tiny weight relative to two century of law and legal precedent.

Laws are introduced and written by these same politicians. So laws must be "tiny words" and "hot air". Jefferson was the same guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence and much of the Constitution.

[on how current gun laws, esp the AWB, defeats the purpose of the 2A] You think so, but the US Supreme Court consistently disagrees with you. The US Supreme Court carries more weight than you do.

The Second Amendment IS written law and the Supreme Court has ruled that the police are not there to protect us. Therefore, we must protect ourselves and our neighbors from criminals intent on doing great bodily harm. We must also protect ourselves from the possibility of any form of tyrannical government.

A system of laws and courts (even imperfect), gives us peace, law and order.

Our government is designed as a four part (not three as one might think) to give us the system of checks and balances. The executive branch, the legilative branch, the judicial branch and the citizens who are there to make sure it all stays kosher! The government isn't supposed to control the population of citizens, it's supposed to serve secondary to the citizens. "By the people, for the people", do you recognize those words?

 

[DonP]

More recent application of the concept or "armed revolt"

Here's one to throw on the table for the fun of it..

Of course an unthinking anti (is there another kind?) will just throw it out as another anomaly. But it might make them think.

On the other hand, anyone that thinks Jefferson's writings and concepts are stale and outdated may be well beyond saving.


The Battle of Athens, Tennessee

As Recently As 1946, American Citizens Were
Forced To Take Up Arms As A Last Resort
Against Corrupt Government Officials.


On August 1-2, 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force as a last resort to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest open elections. For years they had asked for state or federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud (forged ballots, secret ballot counts and intimidation by armed sheriff's deputies) by the local political boss. They got no help.

These Americans' absolute refusal to knuckle under had been hardened by service in World War II. Having fought to free other countries from murderous regimes, they rejected vicious abuse by their county government.

These Americans had a choice. Their state's Constitution -- Article 1, Section 26 -- recorded their right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Few "gun control" laws had been enacted.

These Americans were residents of McMinn County, which is located between Chattanooga and Knoxville in Eastern Tennessee. The two main towns were Athens and Etowah. McMinn County residents had long been independent political thinkers. For a long time they also had: accepted bribe-taking by politicians and/or the sheriff to overlook illicit whiskey-making and gambling; financed the sheriff's department from fines-usually for speeding or public drunkenness which promoted false arrests; and put up with voting fraud by both Democrats and Republicans.

The wealthy Cantrell family, of Etowah, backed Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1932 election, hoping New Deal programs would revive the local economy and help Democrats to replace Republicans in the county government. So it proved.

Paul Cantrell was elected sheriff in the 1936,1938 and 1940 elections, but by slim margins. The sheriff was the key county official. Cantrell was elected to the state senate in 1942 and 1944; his chief deputy, Pat Mansfield, was elected sheriff. In 1946 Paul Cantrell again sought the sheriff's office.

At the end of 1945, some 3,000 battle-hardened veterans returned to McMinn County; the GIs held Cantrell politically responsible for Mansfield's doings. Early in 1946, some newly returned ex-GIs decided to challenge Cantrell politically by offering an all-ex-GI, non-partisan ticket. They promised a fraud-free election, stating in ads and speeches that there would be an honest ballot count and reform of county government.

At a rally, a GI speaker said, "The principles that we fought for in this past war do not exist in McMinn County. We fought for democracy because we believe in democracy but not the form we live under in this county" (Daily Post-Athenian, 17 June 1946, p.1 ). At the end of July 1946, 159 McMinn County GIs petitioned the FBI to send election monitors. There was no response. The Department of Justice had not responded to McMinn County residents' complaints of election fraud in 1940, 1942 and 1944.

FROM BALLOTS TO BULLETS

The primary election was held on August 1. To intimidate voters, Mansfield brought in some 200 armed "deputies." GI poll-watchers were beaten almost at once. At about 3 p.m., Tom Gillespie, an African- American voter was told by a sheriff's deputy that he could not vote. Despite being beaten, Gillespie persisted. The enraged deputy shot him. The gunshot drew a crowd. Rumors spread that Gillespie had been shot in the back; he later recovered (C. Stephen Byrum, The Battle of Athens, Paidia Productions, Chattanooga, TN, 1987; pp. 155-57).

Other deputies detained ex-GI poll-watchers in a polling place, as that made the ballot counting "Public" A crowd gathered. Sheriff Mansfield told his deputies to disperse the crowd. When the two ex-GIs smashed a big window and escaped, the crowd surged forward. The deputies, with guns drawn, formed a tight half-circle around the front of the polling place. One deputy, "his gun raised high...shouted: 'If you sons of bitches cross this street I'll kill you!'" (Byrum, p.165).

Mansfield took the ballot boxes to the jail for counting. The deputies seemed to fear immediate attack by the "people who had just liberated Europe and the South Pacific from two of the most powerful war machines in human history" (Byrum, pp. 168-69).

Short of firearms and ammunition, the GIs scoured the county to find them. By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard armories, they got three M-1 rifles, five .45 semi-automatic pistols and 24 British Enfield rifles. The armories were nearly empty after the war's end. By 8 p.m. a group of GIs and "local boys" headed for the jail but left the back door unguarded to give the jail's defenders an easy way out.

Three GIs alerting passersby to danger were fired on from the jail. Two GIs were wounded. Other GIs returned fire.

Firing subsided after 30 minutes; ammunition ran low and night had fallen. Thick brick walls shielded those inside the jail. Absent radios, the GIs' rifle fire was uncoordinated. "From the hillside fire rose and fell in disorganized cascades. More than anything else, people were simply shooting at the jail" (Byrum, p.189).

Several who ventured into the street in front of the jail were wounded. One man inside the jail was badly hurt; he recovered. Most sheriff's deputies wanted to hunker down and await rescue. Governor McCord mobilized the State Guard, perhaps to scare the GIs into withdrawing. The State Guard never went to Athens. McCord may have feared that Guard units filled with ex-GIs might not fire on other ex-GIs.

At about 2 a.m. on August 2, the GIs forced the issue. Men from Meigs County threw dynamite sticks and damaged the jail's porch. The panicked deputies surrendered. GIs quickly secured the building. Paul Cantrell faded into the night, having almost been shot by a GI who knew him, but whose .45 pistol had jammed. Mansfield's deputies were kept overnight in jail for their own safety. Calm soon returned. The GIs posted guards. The rifles borrowed from the armory were cleaned and returned before sunup.

THE AFTERMATH: RESTORING DEMOCRACY

In five precincts free of vote fraud, the GI candidate for sheriff, Knox Henry, won 1,168 votes to Cantrell's 789. Other GI candidates won by similar margins.

The GI's did not hate Cantrell. They only wanted honest government. On August 2, a town meeting set up a three-man governing committee. The regular police having fled, six men were chosen to police Etowah. In addition, "Individual citizens were called upon to form patrols or guard groups, often led by a GI... To their credit, however, there is not a single mention of an abuse of power on their behalf" (Byrum, p. 220).

Once the GI candidates' victory had been certified, they cleaned up county government, the jail was fixed, newly elected officials accepted a $5,000 pay limit and Mansfield supporters who resigned were replaced.

The general election on November 5 passed quietly. McMinn County residents, having restored the rule of law, returned to their daily lives. Pat Mansfield moved back to Georgia. Paul Cantrell set up an auto dealership in Etowah. "Almost everyone who knew Cantrell in the years after the Battle' agree that he was not bitter about what had happened" (Byrum pp. 232-33; see also New York Times, 9 August 1946, p. 8).

The 79th Congress adjourned on August 2, 1946, when the Battle of Athens ended. However, Representative John Jennings Jr. from Tennessee decried McMinn County's sorry situation under Cantrell and Mansfield and the Justice Department's repeated failures to help the McMinn County residents. Jennings was delighted that "...at long last, decency and honesty, liberty and law have returned to the fine county of McMinn.. " (Congressional Record, House; U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1946; Appendix, Volume 92, Part 13, p. A4870).

THE LESSONS OF ATHENS

Those who took up arms in Athens, Tennessee, wanted honest elections, a cornerstone of our constitutional order. They had repeatedly tried to get federal or state election monitors and had used armed force so as to minimize harm to the law-breakers, showing little malice to the defeated law-breakers. They restored lawful government.

The Battle of Athens clearly shows how Americans can and should lawfully use armed force and also shows why the rule of law requires unrestricted access to firearms and how civilians with military-type firearms can beat the forces of government gone bad.

Dictators believe that public order is more important than the rule of law. However, Americans reject this idea. Brutal political repression is lethal to many. An individual criminal can harm a handful of people. Governments alone can brutalize thousands, or millions.

Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.

 

[Declaration Day]

My input on your letter:

Mr. anti didn't explicitly say that the Constitution is outdated, as many anti-gunners do, but he did imply it:

> You quote from Jefferson's political speeches and letters, which
> amount to political 'hot air' then and now. Interesting words, but
> words that carry tiny weight relative to two century of law and legal
> precedent.

Point out that the Constitution is not outdated, because it was designed to guarantee a free and equal society, given the obstacles presented by human nature. Human nature does not change.

I would also mention that in order to maintain a free society, now and for the long term, individual rights must be upheld over what some contend is a "greater good".

Furthermore, we live in what is (theoretically) a constitutionally-limited republic. If he says "No, this is a Democracy.", ask him to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Then point out that in a constitutional republic, there are certain rights that are NOT subject to the whims of judges, or even the majority of the people. We call this list the Bill of Rights, and not one word of it is negotiable.

Good luck!

 

[jojosdad]

You response looks really good, but here are a few points you might want to add.
The Battle of Athens is the exact reason for the 2nd Amendment. An excellent argument for it was also made by Judge Kozinski, of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Silveria v. Lockyer (
Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) )

The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed ... However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once … Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.

[QUOTE> Then imagine the same situation with 250,000,000 firearms. Bloody anarchy.[/QUOTE]
There are >200,000,000 firearms in private hands right now. Where is the anarchy?

Jefferson's political speeches and letters, which
> amount to political 'hot air' then and now

Did this "hot air" include the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution as well? If not, what could have caused him to change his writing style so radically?

 

[atk]

I strongly recommend using ArfinGreebly's comments. He takes the anti's arguments and works within them, to show a logical failure. All the other arguments I've seen try to espouse our point of view.

If find that it's much easier to convince someone to agree with you if you can first prove that their point of view is flawed. If they can accept this, I find that they can open to other possibilities. Until they can accept this, other possibilities are nothing but thought games, and easily dismissed.

 

[joab]

A system of laws and courts (even imperfect), gives us peace, law and order.

Nazis Germany had a system of laws.
Not much peace, bit there was order and the trains ran on time

 

[akodo]

I'd call him on 'jefferson blowing hot air' Jefferson didn't just talk the talk, he walked the walk, hence 'hot air' is totally off base.

I'd also call him on 'even bad laws'. It's one thing to tollerate silly beaurocratic laws, but exactly how far does one go in accepting 'bad laws'? Does this include the lawful order to turn over all Jews? Lawful order to report all underground-railroad activity, or to turn over escaped slaves?

regarding the supreme court, do a little google work on the laws regarding sawn off shotguns. the courts ruled that the 2nd didn't protect those weapons because there was no military application. The courts basically said, the closer a weapon is to what the military uses, the more protection it gets from the 2nd amendment

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

> Imagine a country of 250,000,000 people, each with a unique idea as to
> which laws are frivolous. Each convinced that they personally are
> right, and that other people are wrong. (Like you feel about me.)
....
> Each of the 250,000,000 willing to take the law into their own hands.
> What would that be like? Anarchy.
>
> Then imagine the same situation with 250,000,000 firearms. Bloody anarchy.

I just have to add that this is a ridiculous analogy!!

He is asking that you imagine 250mil people ALL having completely unique ideas on the perfect set of laws, and ALL of them so opposed to ALL other people to warrant killing?!?!?

That is truely a very unique group of people. ...and jojosdad was right, there are already over 200mil guns in circulation now. Maybe, just maybe, every single person in the United States is not fanatical and crazy, or maybe a tyranny has been prevented thus far????

 

[texas bulldog]

good points all...

this may be a bit simplistic, but it's something i've tried to point out to antis occasionally in the past:

the framers of the BoR didn't bury gun rights at the back. it's not like we're clinging to the ninth and its "rights implied but not expressed" catch-all. they put it second. immediately following the right to free communications and before rights against wrongful prosecution or imprisonment.

think maybe they thought it was pretty f***ing important?

 

[HuntCast]

This is all the reason I need.......

History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
--- Adolf Hitler, Edict of 18 March 1939

 

[PirateJoe]

Thanks for the replies, guys, esp Arfin. I didn't get a chance to incorporate these arguments into that email, as I have sent it already. But I have received a reply. Check these suckers out:

Imagine you lived in a neighborhood with weak police protection, and
you were threatened by armed people from a nearby neighborhood. You
choose to gang together to form a self protection group. A gang.
Your gang name is The Bloods, and the nearby neighborhood gang calls
themselves The Crypts. You advocate that unlimited 'gun ownership is
a good thing' for these inner city gangs. 95+% of the country
disagrees with you.

Or even better:

What about when these other armed people favor taking the law into
their own hands? Do you favor the right of the Black Panthers for
armed revolt? Do you favor the right of KKK gangs to be armed? You
believe that extremist groups have an unlimited right to be armed,
with assault weapons (or nuclear bombs, where do you draw the line?).
95+% of the country disagrees with you.

>the 2A is a last-ditch provision

Actually, this is pure fantasy. In truth, today, the Second
Amendment, as settled by a very long history of court decisions,
allows for widespread legislated gun control. Reality; regardless of
how many times you claim otherwise.

^ this is one I'm having a bit of trouble coming up with a legitimate response to. I see this argument just going in circles.

Me: Well then these court rulings are unconstitutional. The meaning of the second amendment is ridiculously clear.
Him: But these are the courts that are supposed to interpret the meaning of the constitution. Gun control is legal.
Me: Not according the supreme law, the second amendment..
etc.

Any ideas?

 

[hrgrisso]

More Ammo

A lot of folks don't know about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fifth Circuit on October 16, 2001 issued their verdict in the U.S. v Emerson. This verdict affirmed the right of the individual to own a firearm.

Also in regards to the Supreme Court affirming that when the constitution says "the people," it means the people. THis was affirmed in 1990 the U.S. v. Verdugo Urquidez.

Sorry I get my dander up when people say that modern courts don't support the constition.