It was not a surprise that the response of the New York Times to the Connecticut public-school shootings was to run, not one, not two, not three, but four editorials calling for yet another push for gun control. The mainstream media have been waiting literally years for something like this to happen, and they are not about to let such a crisis go to waste.
Don’t give them an inch. Cut them no slack. Punch back twice as hard. When they bring the knife of emotional blackmail to the argument, draw your .50 caliber Desert Eagle of facts, logic and history and blow them away without mercy.
No, Americans will never give them up; he who surrenders his unalienable right to arms also gives up his right to call himself an American.
Thanks to the school shooting the government, that you voted for, will make several attempts to ban or restrict gun ownership.
Understand that any attempt to restrict or ban any gun means a lessening of our freedom.
Banning gun ownership was a first step before the Holocaust and every other genocide this century. Understand that this is what can happen when guns are taken from the people:
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.Now is not the time to stay quiet on an issue. If our guns are taken or restricted, we will be completely defenseless against the government. We could become the next country on the above list.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You say, "that won't happen here."
But why not?
The government has already stated that killing American citizens is acceptable.
The government is already spying on us with unmanned drones.
What is to prevent the government from killing you if it feels like it?
Its has done so in the past.
Most famous example: "Seventy-six men, women and children, including the sect leader, David Koresh, died in the fire."
Second most famous example: "Ruby Ridge was the site of a deadly confrontation and siege in northern Idaho in 1992 because Randy Weaver refused to be an informant for the federal government. It involved Weaver, his family, Weaver's friend Kevin Harris, and agents of the United States Marshals Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation. It resulted in the death of Weaver's son Sammy, his wife Vicki, their family dog Striker, and Deputy US Marshal William Francis Degan."
Understand that those are only the two most famous cases. The American Government has killed civilian Americans repeatedly.
If you are in a situation where you are talking to someone who favors restricting, or banning, any guns, then it is your responsibility, as an American, to correct that person.
We know gun control doesn't work; all of the recent publicized shootings occurred in "gun free zones."
The problem is the people who do the shooting not the guns.
What did recent shooters like Adam Lanza, Jared Lee Loughner, and James Holmes have in common? They were disturbed young men that no law could deter from their intended destruction. Why were the warning signs ignored? All of these men were clearly troubled, all three were on medication. Loughner’s warning signs went ignored. We don’t yet know if Lanza’s family knew he was experiencing problems or if they witnessed warning signs. Holmes was severely medicated and apparently abused his regimen.
- Dana LoeschInform a confused person that guns also save lives. But a gun saving a life is not as newsworthy and you have not heard such stories, even though they occur daily.
Examples from the past five days:
Ohio Homeowner Shoots and Kills Burglar Who Also Broke Into Neighboring Apartment
[Video] Oregon Mall Shooter May Have Been Stopped by Concealed Carrier
TX Homeowner Shoots Knife Wielding Home Invader While on the Phone with 911
MS Resident Shoots Burglar Who Tries to Escape From 3rd Story Balcony
[Video] 77 Year Old Atlanta Grandmother Opens Fire on Burglar
[Video] 81 Year Old Detroit Man Fights Off Intruder With Antique .22 Revolver
[Video] Texas Store Clerk Shoots Knife Wielding Armed Robber on Crime Spree
Guns, potentially, saved lives in each of those cases during the last five days.
Look at this video and ask yourself what the outcome would have been if this armed 71 year old man had not saved the day. This is actual video of a senior citizen saving the day about the time of the Aurora shooting, and I'll bet that you never heard about it. This happens every day in this country and many people want you to be unarmed!
If you are in a situation where you are talking to someone who wants to ban, or restrict, any guns, then you must correct them. Or watch your freedom disappear.
Points to argue:
1. Point to the stories where guns saved lives. This website lists such stories.
2. Point out that the 2nd amendment exists because the founders of our country wanted the people to be able to overthrow the government if the government turned on the people. The founders of our country used guns to get rid of British control of our country, and they wanted future Americans to have the same option.
Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.3. Point out that the states that have more gun control have more murders than their neighboring states. The "neighboring states" part is important because by comparing neighboring states we can compare similar places. Your opponent may point to the murder rate in other countries, but this is misleading. You cannot compare the crime rate of a country of 3 million whites to a country of 310 million people of all races and backgrounds.
- Samuel Adams
The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government
4. Point out that "assault weapon" is a political term to sound scary and gain support for their banning. No person who knows anything about guns will describe one as an "assault weapon." Guns may be described as fully automatic, semi automatic, lever, pump, bolt, etc. But "assault weapon" has no meaning except as a political one.
The Clinton Gun Ban (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) was the last time an "assault weapon" was defined.
Look at the definition of an "assault weapon" and understand that an "assault weapon" is a gun that looks scary not a gun that is meaningfully different from a gun that is often used to hunt ducks, deer, turkeys, etc.
Note that a pistol that weighs more than 50 oz and has a flash suppressor counts as an "assault weapon." How does weight make a gun more dangerous? If the anti-gun people are were arguing against some handguns because they weigh more than 50 oz, they would be rightly ignored because banning a gun because it is heavy is stupid. And yet that is what they are doing; they get away with it because they call them "assault weapons."
For more stupidity in the definition look at what makes a shotgun an "assault weapon."
According to the definition this is an "assault weapon" (pistol grip + hold more than 5 rounds):
And this shotgun does not qualify as an "assault weapon":
Except for how it looks, these two guns are the same. They work the same, most of the parts are the same. They are the same!
But the people who want to ban our guns think the one on top is scary and should be banned, despite their being no meaningful difference between them.
You say, "if there is no difference, then why do you care if one gets banned?"
I care, and so should you, because if there is no difference, why would we restrict the freedom of the people. How can we live in a free country if our freedoms are restricted?
A more accurate definition of "assault weapon" is: “It’s black and makes us poopoo in our panties!”
Alternate names for gun bans:
* The Piss Off People with Guns Act
* The Not All the Nazis’ Ideas Were Bad Act
* The Disarming Law Abiding People Sure Is Easier than Disarming Criminals Act
* The Sissies Scared of Loud Noise Act
* The Freedom Is too Scary Act
* The Ban as Many Guns as We Can Trick People into Allowing Act
* The I Don’t Know Crap About Guns, But I’m Told These Ones Are Bad Act
* The Impossible to Vote for If You Have Functioning Male Parts Act
4. Point out that when someone who knows nothing about guns want to ban "only some" guns what they think that they want banned is fully automatic weapons (multiple shots with one trigger pull). Fully automatic weapons have been illegal since the National Firearms act of 1934.
Why should we add a new law to ban something that is already banned?
5. Point out that the recent shootings occurred in "gun free zones." Only the people who follow the law were unarmed by the laws.
Criminals don't care if they break one more law. Why disarm peaceful citizens if criminals are not disarmed too?
By doing so the criminals are put at an advantage, and the law abiding citizens need to hope that there is a cop around. And hopefully a cop that shoots the criminal not the law abiding citizen. (Just for starters.)
6. Point out that even if we got rid of all gun, crazy people will still kill and injure children and adults.
On the very same day as the CT shooting a crazy person in China stabbed 22 children.
Raise your hand if you heard about this. Our media is complicit in helping support the government when it comes to restricting our freedoms.
Banning guns does not end violence.
Some advice for debating people:
- You will not convince the person that you are debating.
- You might convince a witness to the debate.
- Name calling and insults from you are unacceptable and will encourage the other side.
- If you do not get called names and insulted by your opponent, then you are not debating right.
- Mercilessly attack their arguments, not their person.
- You demeanor must be polite, cheerful, and in good humor.
- You should not get mad, for any reason.
- If you argue that guns are good, then the facts are on your side.
- Stay positive and stay focused, look for the flaws in their arguments and destroy them with your words.
This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.If you say or do nothing while the left comes for our guns, then you cannot call yourself an American, or a man.
Great post. Jack weighed in too:ReplyDelete
Thanks for the link.Delete
I would add:
1. The most deadly school mass killing in the US occurred in 1927 in Michigan. The tools used to kill the victims in question were #3 BOMBS....
2. Gun control in the US was started as a response to blacks arming themselves to protect themselves against whites. ( See http://www.ctsportsmen.com/news/racist_roots_of_gun_control.htm). I love the way liberals heads spin when you tell them that they are supporting a policy that has racist origins.
3. When I encounter counter arguments "we have to get rid of the guns, ..." I tend to shrug and tell them that they are "operating under a logical fallacy that frankly borders on magical thinking". I then ask them whether or not it is possible to prevent illegal importation and use the counter argument of illegal drug importation and the fact that it really isn't that hard to make firearms in a machine shop.
I like your third point.Delete