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

RKBA reminder

Discussion in 'Legal' started by txgho1911, May 15, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. txgho1911

    txgho1911 Member

    Mar 21, 2004
    Found this on another site.
    Any error or insulting content the Admins may feel free to edit.
    I believe the majority of this info is true statement though retoric to some degree.

    Why we need to ban guns

    1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.

    2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

    3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control. But statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics".

    4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

    5. We must get rid of guns because a deranted lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

    6. The more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

    7.An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

    8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

    9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense-give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns don't die-People do, 1981, p. 125)

    10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treaties on heart surgery.

    11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

    12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

    13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings, and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "State" militia.

    14. These phrases: "right of the people to peaceably assemble", "right of the people to be secure in their homes", "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people", and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals. But "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

    15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change". But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments of that Constitution.

    16. Rifles and hadguns aren't necessary to national defense. Of course, that's why the Army has hundreds of thousands of them.

    17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns because they are not 'military weapons'. But private citizens shouldn't have 'assault rifles' because they are military weapons.

    18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc. guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, with no waiting, no background checks, no fingerprints, no government forms, and there were no school shootings.

    19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

    20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple that they make murder easy.

    21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

    22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men, but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

    23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers, but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

    24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

    25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

    26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered a "weapon of mass destruction", or an "assault weapon."

    27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

    28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of hanguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

    29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

    30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, but the NRA is bad because it protects certain parts of the Constitution.

    31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA, is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored. But Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc., is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

    32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines, as opposed to 'civilians' who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

    33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive hanguns because it isn't fair that poor people have access to guns too.

    34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

    35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self protection because the police are there to protect them, even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

    36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection, but Police Chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

    37. "Assault Weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

    38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal Government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith and Wesson, that's good.

    39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

    40. Hangun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

    41. Ballistic fingerprinting works so well, that of the 19,000 ballistic fingerprints available in the Maryland database, not a single one has helped solve a crime committed with a firearm.

    42. Rosie O'Donnell doesn't think that a firearm is necessary for self protection. Which is why her personal body guards have handguns.

    43. Senator Diane Feinstein (CA) thinks that a concealed carry permit will not help prevent personal crime, which is why she has one.
  2. idd

    idd Member

    Jan 22, 2004
    ghobrien, since you posted it here I asume you are looking for constructive criticism. I like how point nine specifically cited Pete Shields own words. I have not read his book, _Guns Don't Die_, but I am assuming that you have read it or at least verified that the reference 100% accurate. I think that the entire piece could be improved by documenting all the other points using footnotes. The ironic tone works sometimes, but other times it may confuse fence-sitters and people with only limited knowledge of firearms. Also, there are some minor punctuation errors.

    D.C.'s purported murder rate here seems awfully high, and I suspect that it is incorrect. If I remember correctly, D.C.'s murder rate peaked about 1990 at 40 per 100,000, which was about 10 times as high as that of Arlington, just across the Potomoc River in gun-friendly Virgina.

    Are you quoting any gun control advocate in particular? If not, drop the quotes. In fact, I have not seen any gun control advocates casually dismiss crime stats as "just statistics." In other words, point three appears to be a strawman. I'd scrap it.

    Malapropism. The word you are looking for is "treatise," not "treaties." While they both dervice from a common Latin root ("tractare," meaning "to deal with, to drag about"), confusing the two is a sophmoric mistake that undercuts the intellectual highground.

    You and I know that Sarah Brady's views on firearms are nonsense, but that's not readily apparent to a fence-sitter. If Brady were an expert on firearms, would that make her views on gun policy more sound? No. The subtext of point 11 is that Brady has no credibility because she is not an expert. This comes close to being a fallacy called appeal to authority. I'd scrape it.

    Good point, but the date is off. The National Guard was created with the enactment of the Dick Act of 1903. See the dissertation of Louis Cantor, "The Creation of the Modern National Guard: The Dick
    Militia Act of 1903." (Duke University: 1963).

    I dislike using quotes attributed to imaginerary or unreferenced speakers.

    If memory serves, New York was implementing gun control in this time frame. New York's regulatory scheme may or may not undercut the validity of this statement. Probably John Ross or Tamara could answer this question of the tops of their heads, but you better check.

    A majority of the population - including the NRA - *does* support at least some gun control. Shall-issue concealed carry laws are another form of gun control, albeit one embraced by NRA.

    I know that was true a few years ago, but it is still truae as of today? Better check this.

    I know she applied for and received on in San Francisco, but does she still have a valid, current CHL? Better check.

    Hope this helps.
  3. Sisco

    Sisco Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    So then one must assume that Pete advises the females in his family that if confronted by a rapist they should throw themselves to the ground, spread their legs and scream "Take me big boy!"
  4. txgho1911

    txgho1911 Member

    Mar 21, 2004
    As I noted above

    I found this on the internet. I would not assume any of this post is true. I will certainly not believe all that I read on the internet. I do not have the time or resources to verify this info. If for no other reason than FYI this is circulating around the internet.
  5. jimpeel

    jimpeel Member

    Jan 2, 2003
    Kimball, NE
    The piece is a parody on the irony of the logic of gun control. Most of it is true, logicwise. Some of it is incorrect. This from http://www.arng.army.mil/history/

    Makes it kinda hard to be established in 1917.

    There was, of course, the Dick Act of 1903 http://www.arng.army.mil/history/Constitution/default.asp?ID=13 which is, in the minds of most Americans, the official start of the National Guard but, again, not 1917.

    Grammatical, and historical errors aside, it is a good piece full of useful thoughts to be used against the enemies of the Second Amendment.

    My personal favorite is Number 17:
    Especially because this is what I have been saying for years.

    Of course they forgot my alltime favorite which is:
  6. Stand_Watie

    Stand_Watie Member

    Jan 7, 2004
    east Texas
    With all due respect to the army national guard they are embellishing a bit when they say

    The next statement is more accurate.

    One is not the other.

    If the army guard wants to use the second sentence to justify the claim made by the first, they could just as well claim to be thousands of years old, "tracing their history" from the first reserve armies recorded many years BC.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page