You're never going to believe THIS one! 
The link and my response is below. I tried to keep it civil, tell me what you think.
http://www.goodbyeguns.org/
Dear Mr. Garen,
First of all, I hope you have the courage to read this entire letter with an open mind. Now, please explain this discrepancy to me. Your web page says:
"Clark believes a small group of con artists are fooling our citizens into throwing away the rights our founding fathers paid for with their lives. Think Radio advocates "awareness and thought" as tools to defeat these evil and sinister con artists."
I thought, no I know, that the second amendment is a right our founding fathers fought for. This is an inalienable individual right. As individuals we have certain inalienable rights. These rights were wisely listed in the BILL OF RIGHTS so as to LIMIT the government from intruding on them. The Second Amendment is a basic HUMAN RIGHT. It is the right of SELF-DEFENSE from other individuals, groups or tyrannical governments. No majority can take this away. It is a fundamental right. Our Founding fathers had just fought a bloody revolution and feared standing armies and a strong centralized government. The bill of rights
was NOT a compromise. It was something that the federalists just took as common sense but the Anti-Federalists wanted in writing.
Mr. Garen, I am not a stupid man by any stretch. I am in school working towards my Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering. I also have a wife who has an irrational fear of firearms. Maybe it's understandable that women, who's bodies are made to create life, would be terrified of something that is designed to take life. However, a gun in the right
hands defends life from those who have no respect for it.
If you look at the states that have passed concealed carry laws, you'll see that the fastest growing group of gun owners is women. Why? Because in a match between a 130 pound female and a 220 pound mugger/rapist/killer, the simple handgun is an equalizer. How can you be so opposed to a tool that empowers the INDIVIDUAL to defend themselves in the face of what would otherwise be overwhelming odds?
When the criminal doesn't know who is armed, person on person crime plummets, as is the case in states with Right to Carry laws. I refer you to the book, "More guns, less crime" by John R. Lott.
Tell me Mr. Garen, is it compassionate to disarm the potential rape victim? Is it common sense to put all your eggs in one basket and rely solely on the police for self-defense? Is it common sense to take
away a tool that is the greatest equalizer between victim and criminal ever? Is it common sense to have "gun-free zones" that advertise the presence of unarmed citizens to the illegally armed criminals?
Mr. Garen, if you are unwilling to assume the responsibility that comes with owning a firearm, don't buy one. If you are unwilling
to assume the responsibility that comes with raising children in a house with firearms, PLEASE don't buy any. Do not, however, take the right of self-defense away from those who are willing to accept that responsibility.
With Freedom comes responsibility, and perhaps it is a reflection on todays irresponsible society that so many people, like yourself, are so willing to give up their essential freedoms. Don't take away my right to own a firearm because you can't handle the responsibilities and risks
that come with freedom.
I am afraid for this country when people like you would be more than happy to let armed government agents confiscate private firearms, and then be content to let the government keep its weapons. There will be a
revolution if the government attempts confiscation. If the next step in your plan is confiscation, then the FINAL step will be subjugation.
Your petition demands would never stand up in the supreme court. You'd have to eliminate the 2nd, 4th and 9th amendments to do it. You speak about invading personal liberties! I submit to you that you would be willing to violate the personal liberties of 80 million law abiding firearms owners in America in order to achieve your goal! Do the ends
justify the means as long as they are your ends and your means?
I hope you and your loved ones never find yourself in a situation where your final wish is for a firearm to defend yourself with. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Demetrius
Sarigiannis RKBA!
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
--Benjamin Franklin
------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.
The link and my response is below. I tried to keep it civil, tell me what you think.http://www.goodbyeguns.org/
Dear Mr. Garen,
First of all, I hope you have the courage to read this entire letter with an open mind. Now, please explain this discrepancy to me. Your web page says:
"Clark believes a small group of con artists are fooling our citizens into throwing away the rights our founding fathers paid for with their lives. Think Radio advocates "awareness and thought" as tools to defeat these evil and sinister con artists."
I thought, no I know, that the second amendment is a right our founding fathers fought for. This is an inalienable individual right. As individuals we have certain inalienable rights. These rights were wisely listed in the BILL OF RIGHTS so as to LIMIT the government from intruding on them. The Second Amendment is a basic HUMAN RIGHT. It is the right of SELF-DEFENSE from other individuals, groups or tyrannical governments. No majority can take this away. It is a fundamental right. Our Founding fathers had just fought a bloody revolution and feared standing armies and a strong centralized government. The bill of rights
was NOT a compromise. It was something that the federalists just took as common sense but the Anti-Federalists wanted in writing.
Mr. Garen, I am not a stupid man by any stretch. I am in school working towards my Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering. I also have a wife who has an irrational fear of firearms. Maybe it's understandable that women, who's bodies are made to create life, would be terrified of something that is designed to take life. However, a gun in the right
hands defends life from those who have no respect for it.
If you look at the states that have passed concealed carry laws, you'll see that the fastest growing group of gun owners is women. Why? Because in a match between a 130 pound female and a 220 pound mugger/rapist/killer, the simple handgun is an equalizer. How can you be so opposed to a tool that empowers the INDIVIDUAL to defend themselves in the face of what would otherwise be overwhelming odds?
When the criminal doesn't know who is armed, person on person crime plummets, as is the case in states with Right to Carry laws. I refer you to the book, "More guns, less crime" by John R. Lott.
Tell me Mr. Garen, is it compassionate to disarm the potential rape victim? Is it common sense to put all your eggs in one basket and rely solely on the police for self-defense? Is it common sense to take
away a tool that is the greatest equalizer between victim and criminal ever? Is it common sense to have "gun-free zones" that advertise the presence of unarmed citizens to the illegally armed criminals?
Mr. Garen, if you are unwilling to assume the responsibility that comes with owning a firearm, don't buy one. If you are unwilling
to assume the responsibility that comes with raising children in a house with firearms, PLEASE don't buy any. Do not, however, take the right of self-defense away from those who are willing to accept that responsibility.
With Freedom comes responsibility, and perhaps it is a reflection on todays irresponsible society that so many people, like yourself, are so willing to give up their essential freedoms. Don't take away my right to own a firearm because you can't handle the responsibilities and risks
that come with freedom.
I am afraid for this country when people like you would be more than happy to let armed government agents confiscate private firearms, and then be content to let the government keep its weapons. There will be a
revolution if the government attempts confiscation. If the next step in your plan is confiscation, then the FINAL step will be subjugation.
Your petition demands would never stand up in the supreme court. You'd have to eliminate the 2nd, 4th and 9th amendments to do it. You speak about invading personal liberties! I submit to you that you would be willing to violate the personal liberties of 80 million law abiding firearms owners in America in order to achieve your goal! Do the ends
justify the means as long as they are your ends and your means?
I hope you and your loved ones never find yourself in a situation where your final wish is for a firearm to defend yourself with. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Demetrius
Sarigiannis RKBA!
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
--Benjamin Franklin
------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.