How would you respond to this?
This is a discussion on How would you respond to this? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Criminals, Bad Guys, Evil People don't follow laws. They don't follow the existing laws and they won't follow new laws that prohibit law abiding citizens ...
December 20th, 2012 02:01 PM
Criminals, Bad Guys, Evil People don't follow laws. They don't follow the existing laws and they won't follow new laws that prohibit law abiding citizens from owning guns. These Evil People are the problem. Weapons don't kill people. Evil People kill people. That is the truth. When you accept the truth we can then start to discuss ways to prevent evil people from doing evil things.
NRA Life Member
GOA Life Member
Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!
December 20th, 2012 02:11 PM
What is strange is that while they may acknowledge this, they still cling to the idea that that putting restrictions on the law abiding will somehow reduce the availability to and activity of the criminals. How this would happen is never mentioned. It is just simply stated repeatedly, over and over again.
Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy
The thought just hit me: wasn't this exactly what happened with the Fast and Furious Scandal? Legal guns getting into the hands of criminals. The parallels are unnerving.
December 20th, 2012 03:23 PM
The left has spent decades trying to make people believe that the 2A is about hunting. And following the same pattern as what happened in England. Slowly chipping away at the edges and have people say, "oh, i don't have a need for that type of weapon so I don't care", until everything is made illegal.
You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You are able to say to yourself, "I have lived through this horror. I can take the next thing that comes along." . . . You must do the thing you think you cannot do. Eleanor Roosevelt
December 20th, 2012 03:24 PM
Just ask them how often you see just ONE zombie?
North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit Instructor
NRA Personal Protection and Basic Pistol Instructor
December 20th, 2012 04:25 PM
When I have these discussions, I try to take people back to the days when the Constitution was written. We had just fought a war to throw off an oppressive government and history has shown that we were right to do so. So, let's look at that for a moment: who are "We?" We the People, the CIVILIANS of the colonies who had to fight off a professional army (or armies if you count mercenaries). They abused and took advantage of us until the seeds of revolution were sown; then they tried to disarm us. We said "enough is enough." So what weapons did we use to throw off this tyranny? Certainly not the 'safest' weapons we could find. No, we used "Assault Muskets!" Had the colonists possessed AR's would they have used them? Or would they have said, "No, these are too dangerous. It would be better to be subjugated than stoop to using these horrible things?" Heck yes they would have used them.
So, part of the argument stems from the Second Amendment, but the other part I use stems from Government shutdowns: can the Anti's really promise us that a shutdown or collapse will never happen? Can they promise that I'm just being paranoid and that I'll never have to defend my family against rioters, looters (including rapists) or scumbags in general? What about all the instances where lawlessness has broken out and claimed lives? Katrina, LA riots, and the like? Can they predict the future? Don't let them BS you on this, press them, "Can you predict the future?" No normal person wants to have to kill people, but I'm determined that my family isn't going to meet their maker until He decides it's time, not some nutjob. Sometimes in order to do this job, you need an AR or something like it.
Now, this is not my whole argument, just a few of the points I make: it's at this point I either have them on my side, even if just a little bit, or they say silly stuff like, "Well, if they really want to kill you that bad, you just have to let them," or "I guess that if it comes to that, you just have to accept that it's your time to go." At that point it's easy for me to leave them feeling like they've totally lost the debate by saying something like, "Well, if that's your choice I can respect it, but I love my family too much to let anything like that happen."
If all else fails, just take them to Old North Church, sit them down and let them think awhile. :)
December 20th, 2012 04:57 PM
I like the history lesson approach. It seems the vast majority of citizens don't understand their own history. It's an indispensable necessity to any meaningful dialog about the constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights.
It seems to me a major weak point in the Antis' argument is that they are always willing for military and police to have these arms. So, what is the difference between myself and the police? Aside from their mandate, it is training. Personally, I am not inclined to negotiate away my rights, but if we must have a compromise to throw on the table, it should be possible to agree that with training one would be deemed safe enough to keep and bear these particular arms. Many of us already have the training which would qualify and it could be an incentive for someone to offer low-cost training.
December 21st, 2012 01:28 AM
The best response I have heard to the question "who needs an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine?" came from Bill O'Reiley. He said if someone breaks into my house with a pistol and I have a pistol, there would be a fight. I DON'T want a fight, I want to kill him where he stands as quickly as possible. (or words to that effect)
The other response I heard from someone was that he was one of those untrained incompetent civilians we hear some much about and therefore he would need all 30 rounds in the hopes that one or two might actually hit their target.