This is a good point. We are constantly playing defense. Under constant bombardment from the ignorant, we always are in the position of trying to justify our position as if it were not legitimate. They ask, we try to answer. They will continue to ask, continue to create straw man scenarios that never happened, and cherry pick facts. This is how they will incrementally grow their unconstitutional position over time. (1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, 1994 AWB).
Originally Posted by gasmitty
Maybe the right approach in some cases is to attack the question - go on offense. "Question the premise" as Andrew Breitbart would say. When Ben Shapiro was on Pierce Morgan's show, Pierce said (paraphrase) "Your own President Reagan supported forms of gun control in the 1986 FOPA legislation". Ben simply answered "So what?" and went on to decimate Pierce with facts.
When they say "Why do you need xyz..." We say "It doesn't matter. It is a constitutional law. Why do you want to ignore the constitution? If you want to ignore the Second Amendment, should we ignore the first amendment? If you feel that strongly about it there is a process - it is called Amending the Constitution. Go for it".
As much as the anti-gunners would like to justify their position, they can't. Whether they admit it or not, it is about control of the population, not control of guns. Every argument they have is either flawed, inconsistent, illegitimate or unconstitutional.
If they really "want to do something" to protect children, then they need to start elsewhere. Let's start with (CDC) auto accidents, drownings, and poison. To claim that "Even if we save one life, it is worth it" is a lie. Every day, guns save 80x more lives than are taken from firearms.
Guns in America | Facts and statistics about firearms in the USA - this is a great graphic to show someone...check it out
and this "counter" which tracks guns saving lives against other accidental deaths....
Gun Self Defense Counter Web Widget
Facts from the FBI and CDC confirm, without question, that this is true. Don't let them cherry pick the facts.
In short, here are the truths:
1- "The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms." GunCite-Second Amendment-Original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment
2 - The purpose of 2A is to preserve liberty - to protect against tyrannical governments - even our own. It is "Liberty's Teeth".
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington
3 - Registration precedes Confiscation, and Confiscation precedes Extermination (Genocide). Governments killed more civilians in the 20th century than military casualties all wars combined.
Death by "Gun Control"
20th Century Democide
4 - It is about individuals, not collective militias or "collective anything"
GunCite-Second Amendment-Original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment
5 - All facts (CDC, FBI) support the idea that "An armed society is a polite society".
So, ask these people, even thought it "feels" like the right thing to do, are they willing to sacrifice up to 500,000 annual rapes, assaults and murder preventions for an event (mass shooting) that has less probability of happening than being struck by lightning?
Ask them if they understand that Citizens are 5.5x better than police at not shooting innocents (11% error rate versus 2% error rate - Are We 'A Nation Of Cowards'? - Newsweek and The Daily Beast).
Ask them if they know that when armed citizens are present in a defense situation, they are able to stop a mass shooting 6.2x better than police? (14.3 victims versus 2.3 victims due to on-site response - Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics - National Libertarian | Examiner.com).
I'm throwing this out here for discussion. Maybe it is time for us to go on the offense with facts instead of playing their game and justifying what we do not need to justify.
If you don't like it, Amend the Constitution. Nothing else is acceptable.
The after dinner treat is spelled dessert.
Originally Posted by atctimmy
I find it useless to debate this issue of "needing" anything gun related. Simple "want" is reason enough. Tell her she doesn't "need' most of her personal possessions, but that she bought them because she "wanted' them.
But I wouldn't waste my time on a no-win situation.
See if you can get Ann to go to the Range with you. Take various toys with you so you can demonstrate the AR is no more menacing than a Ruger 10/22. If you can accomplish that maybe she won't be such a staunch supporter when sucking down the anti gun wine at happy hour. Plus it just gives her the rush of shooting itself.
Yup, I caught that on my proof read. Thanks. Nobody wants a large hot bowl of sand after a meal.
Originally Posted by highvoltage
Ann lives in Badger country and I live in Buckeye country.
Originally Posted by DPro.40
Only thing I would add is the UK is brought up due to their low gun homicides because they do not allow their citizens to have guns. But no one points out it is at the top of the list for the most violent crimes. This holds true in almost every country. Less law abiding gun owners the more chance of crime on your streets.
atctimmy... maybe you can add a concise paragraph as to why ARs make good home defense weapons.
Recently, I saw a list 8 that included: 1) light weight, 2) low recoil 3) accuracy 4) power/effectiveness/mag size 5) accessorizability/adjustability to fit different individuals/needs 6) reasonably priced ammo (until this current crisis) 7) less likely to over-penetrate with the right ammo.
Many would argue that an AR is a better choice at home than even a shotty.
(BTW, love what you had already prepared.)
I just checked, my guns didn't magically walk away and end up in the street! They are all right where they belong in the house.
We'll have to wait and see on this. She hasn't responded to my original post yet. We'll see how she reacts and then go from there. Good idea though.
Originally Posted by Brass63
The only thing I would add that you didn't have is...
Nah, I think you nailed it. Now many have added awesome resources for a follow up discussion, great stats added.
I agree with everyone addressing the irrelevant "need" argument. People don't need homes with more than 1 room, nice cars, nice clothes or even steak dinners. Driving too fast can kill someone as can cholesterol from steak. The fact is you have a right to own whatever gun you want as identified in our constitution. You do not wish to preclude Ann from owning a car, having plastic surgery or anything else she chooses to do so why should she have such a say in your life.
Enough of the educated liberals thinking that they know what is better for us and our families than we do.
Well, she didn't listen. It was worth the shot though.
I was seeing so many anti-gun posts on FB, mainly from relatives, that I haven't logged into it in at least 3 weeks. Your response is extremely well written, hopefully she will see the truth of things and understand where we are coming from.
Edit: Just saw your last post, that's a shame.
Maybe you need another friend. Since they don't see your point then why waste your time explaining what you have/want to them.
If your posting anything pro gun on FB..
KnoW ur on watch,and everything you say will be documented.
As well as you put on the "Threat" list....
Get off while you can...
The CIA is watching you and knows everythng