This is a discussion on This is how I explain it. within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; We're hot in the middle of election season and sooner or later the conversation turns to 2A rights and gun control. I have one simple ...
We're hot in the middle of election season and sooner or later the conversation turns to 2A rights and gun control. I have one simple way to express my opinion. Here's the scenario I give;
How would you feel if you left your polling place and were met with protesters telling you that you shouldn't be voting. Strangers telling you that you probably aren't smart enough to pick the best candidate and you should leave those choices up to more qualified people who would make the best decisions for everyone.
Not one single person would agree that we should have restrictions on voting.
So why does anyone want to have restrictions on my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms?
It's in The Bill of Rights. This is the second amendment to the Constitution. Who are you to take that from me?
Can anyone (reasonably) argue with that logic?
Just saying how I explain things when the conversation turns to taking away 2A rights.
I got in before this goes political.....
Don"t let stupid be your skill set....
And Shepards we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee,
Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, So that our feet may swiftly carry out thy command,
And we shall flow a river forth to Thee, And teeming with souls shall it ever be,
Some (including myself, depending on my mood) would still argue that voting should have restrictions, so I'm not sure if comparing the 2A to voting is the right path to walk down.
I would just stick with the fact that the 2A was foundational in our country's inception and was included in the Bill of Rights to protect our natural rights, not provide them, and the historical context favors personal gun ownership for self protection (against the government) without enumerated limitations. Therefore, any limitations that are proposed must not hinder a civilian's right to reasonably (a spork is not a valid defensive weapon, for instance) protect themselves from said government should such a need arise.
You can move on to why or how a person might need to defend themselves against the government if it moves in that direction, but that's the purpose of the amendment.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9
“The purpose of the law is not to prevent a future offense, but to punish the one actually committed” - Ayn Rand
I've yet to find a "silver bullet" argument for anything.
Many are immune to logic and facts. We truly are a nation that is ruled by minority opinion that has captured our legislators. Arguing with them only throws pearls before swine.
Regaining control of our government is the only solution that I see.
You Can Also Find Me On Personal Defense Forum Dot Com
I look at it more like this, the antis have a right to exercise their freedom of speech given to them by the same people and doccument that gives me the right to bear arms. They want to take our rights by exercising theirs. Its irony at its finest.
"The thing about quotes on the internet is that you can not confirm their validity."
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky. dangerous animals."
Never make the mistake of trying to use logic with an anti. It doesn't work. You'd stand a better chance of turning their own argument around on them. "I carry for the children, to be able to keep them safe from the bad people of the world".
Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.
NRA Life Member