Spats McGee
Administrator
An excellent point. Where possible, we should be asking the 2As to demonstrate why their want should trump our right.JimmyR said:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Going to be a panelist at a "Gun Control Forum" tomorrow night - any talking points?
- Thread starter WC145
- Start date
Rainbow Demon
New member
The resistence to a tyranical government argument won't sit well with Obamites. The hardcore of his base are all for a bit of tyranical rule as long as they can delude themselves that it will benefit them while punishing those they see as the enemies to progress.
One might point out that Liberals and Libertarians often push for repealing laws against drugs, though drug addled brains are a major cause of violent crime and suicides.
One of the liberal talking heads made a remark about the second amendment being due for repeal just like the 18th amendment . The rather weak and illogical reasoning being that anything can be repealed, but he failed to catch on that the 18th amendment was a bann that the American people ignored or violated at every opportunity because it was unjust to the people, unconstitutional, and its only purpose was to dictate what the citizen could consume on his own dime.
Its been proven beyond doubt that prohibitions or draconian regulations placed on firearms ownership have had no noticable effect on criminals obtaining firearms.
Its impossible to eradicate clandestine manufacture of firearms and ammunition in any industrialized nation, and even the most backwards third world pestholes have a thriving black market in modern weaponry from pocket pistols to shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles.
PS
As for repelling a foreign invader, remind them of Admiral Yamamoto's words. In short he said that invading the USA would be a disaster because there would be "a rifle behind each blade of grass".
One might point out that Liberals and Libertarians often push for repealing laws against drugs, though drug addled brains are a major cause of violent crime and suicides.
One of the liberal talking heads made a remark about the second amendment being due for repeal just like the 18th amendment . The rather weak and illogical reasoning being that anything can be repealed, but he failed to catch on that the 18th amendment was a bann that the American people ignored or violated at every opportunity because it was unjust to the people, unconstitutional, and its only purpose was to dictate what the citizen could consume on his own dime.
Its been proven beyond doubt that prohibitions or draconian regulations placed on firearms ownership have had no noticable effect on criminals obtaining firearms.
Its impossible to eradicate clandestine manufacture of firearms and ammunition in any industrialized nation, and even the most backwards third world pestholes have a thriving black market in modern weaponry from pocket pistols to shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles.
PS
As for repelling a foreign invader, remind them of Admiral Yamamoto's words. In short he said that invading the USA would be a disaster because there would be "a rifle behind each blade of grass".
Every argument for banning assault weapons can be turned around to ban sports cars (which kill more people annually than assault weapons do.)
All cars are registered, taxed yearly and tagged. And, you must take a test and be licensed to drive a car. The antis will quickly point this out if you use the car analogy.
Owning guns is a right in the United States. It is a check and balance on tyranny and take-over of our country by those who would seek to enslave the masses and empower a small elite group. It is also recognized by the founders that individuals were responsible for protecting themselves, their families and their property in times of civil unrest.
Check your local/state Constitution. The wording relating to RKBA may be different than the US Constituition. In my state,my State Constituion reads as such:
Article 1,Section 22. Right to bear arms. -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I am pretty sure that this can not be misread to mean anything other than what it says. Use local laws as much as you can. And notice how it is in the beginning of or Constitution. We have 15 articles. The framers of or Constitution felt it important enough to place it within the first Article. Just as the framers of the US Constituion decided to place this right right in the beginning of the Amendments.
Good luck.
Article 1,Section 22. Right to bear arms. -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I am pretty sure that this can not be misread to mean anything other than what it says. Use local laws as much as you can. And notice how it is in the beginning of or Constitution. We have 15 articles. The framers of or Constitution felt it important enough to place it within the first Article. Just as the framers of the US Constituion decided to place this right right in the beginning of the Amendments.
Good luck.
After Action Review?
I think it would be very helpful if you could find the time to provide us with an After Action Review following your panel session. How did it go in general? What points do you think you made most effectively? Which points were not understood, or not well-received? What would you recommend to others who might participate in similar sessions? I think we are in for a long contest, and will need to draw on all the experience and knowledge, as well as passion, of our folks as we confront the opposition on various fronts. I'll appreciate reading what you can provide.
I think it would be very helpful if you could find the time to provide us with an After Action Review following your panel session. How did it go in general? What points do you think you made most effectively? Which points were not understood, or not well-received? What would you recommend to others who might participate in similar sessions? I think we are in for a long contest, and will need to draw on all the experience and knowledge, as well as passion, of our folks as we confront the opposition on various fronts. I'll appreciate reading what you can provide.
Wear a T-Shirt with a really big bulls-eye on it. It's symbolic on so many levels.
First, the schools' gun-free zone has now made you a target.
They have you up there to be a target. Whatever you say is going to be used against you.
Look, it may not be this bad but it might be worse. How will you handle them trying to snipe you with statistics that you don't have the resources to verify or refute at hand.
People do not want to have a discussion. They just want whatever it is they want. If they want you up there, just someone "off the street" to face off against their pro-gun control Sheriffand people with "Dr. in front of their names", then yes, you should get that shirt. Cause what they want is a target to snipe at. and one guy's 1-2 minutes is not equal to 4 other panel members' combined 4-8 minutes.
I hope it doesn't go this way but keep it in the back of your mind.
First, the schools' gun-free zone has now made you a target.
They have you up there to be a target. Whatever you say is going to be used against you.
Look, it may not be this bad but it might be worse. How will you handle them trying to snipe you with statistics that you don't have the resources to verify or refute at hand.
People do not want to have a discussion. They just want whatever it is they want. If they want you up there, just someone "off the street" to face off against their pro-gun control Sheriffand people with "Dr. in front of their names", then yes, you should get that shirt. Cause what they want is a target to snipe at. and one guy's 1-2 minutes is not equal to 4 other panel members' combined 4-8 minutes.
I hope it doesn't go this way but keep it in the back of your mind.
I'vebeenduped
New member
Insist that "assault weapons" is a political term. Select fire weapons are already against the law for the vast majority of civilians to own. We use semi-automatic rifles. One pull of the trigger for one round, the same action as most handguns which are not being disputed.
I think we concede too much when we define tyranny as being solely the result of an oppressive government. Do you think the good people living in poor sections of major cities feel tyrannized by the gangs that rule the streets? Is there no need or right for those people to defend themselves and their loved ones against that type of tyranny?
I am also struck by the fact that the "rational" discussion of "reasonable" firearm restrictions does not include the human cost that will be paid for any restriction on access to firearms. The most aggressive gun control advocates claim that firearms are used for self defense "only" around 60,000 times a year; that is still over four times as often as they are used to take the life of another. The Centers for Disease Control, usually no friend of the second amendment, estimates that intruders were frightened away by an armed residence of the home after being seen by the householder approximately a half a million times a year (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354); even with the limitation of the intruder being actually seen by the resident, this scenario takes places around 40 times as often as a firearm-related murder. Gary Kleck's estimates of 2 to 2.5 million defensive firearm uses per year are frequently demeaned by gun control activists, but they have been published in peer-reviewed journals of criminology such as The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and The Journal of Quantitative Criminology; his figures lead one to conclude that firearms are used for lawful self defense as much as 150 times as often as for murder.
It is neither reasonable nor just to assume that denying 60,000, or half a million, or two and a half million people access to effective self defense will not cost of human lives.
I am also struck by the fact that the "rational" discussion of "reasonable" firearm restrictions does not include the human cost that will be paid for any restriction on access to firearms. The most aggressive gun control advocates claim that firearms are used for self defense "only" around 60,000 times a year; that is still over four times as often as they are used to take the life of another. The Centers for Disease Control, usually no friend of the second amendment, estimates that intruders were frightened away by an armed residence of the home after being seen by the householder approximately a half a million times a year (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354); even with the limitation of the intruder being actually seen by the resident, this scenario takes places around 40 times as often as a firearm-related murder. Gary Kleck's estimates of 2 to 2.5 million defensive firearm uses per year are frequently demeaned by gun control activists, but they have been published in peer-reviewed journals of criminology such as The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and The Journal of Quantitative Criminology; his figures lead one to conclude that firearms are used for lawful self defense as much as 150 times as often as for murder.
It is neither reasonable nor just to assume that denying 60,000, or half a million, or two and a half million people access to effective self defense will not cost of human lives.
2damnold4this
New member
How did it go?
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Falcon642 said:Oh, and if they mock at the defense against tyranny aspect of the 2nd Amendment, bring up this tidbit:
Quote:
According to one estimate, just since last spring DHS has stockpiled more than 1.6 billion bullets, mainly .40 caliber and 9mm. That's sufficient firepower to shoot every American about five times. Including illegal immigrants.
To provide some perspective, experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, DHS is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war.
Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/politics-a...#ixzz2KfMabMEE
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
http://news.investors.com/politics-a...-purchases.htm
Rainbow Demon said:PS
As for repelling a foreign invader, remind them of Admiral Yamamoto's words. In short he said that invading the USA would be a disaster because there would be "a rifle behind each blade of grass".
Hopefully, the OP didn't use either of these arguments, since they're both internet fantasies.
If we're going to win the argument, we need to do it with real facts to counteract the emotion on the other side. Easily debunked conspiracy theories and quotes invented out of thin air do nothing to help.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ssabullets.asp
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/
Living in NY, our rights are being trampled on even moreso than the rest of the country. I am an IPSC / IDPA / 3Gun shooter, or should I say, I used to be. I just got a letter from some of the clubs that I belong to saying that nobody is permitted to bring a mag of more than 10 rounds to the range. This effectively elimates 3 gun, and limited/open for IPSC.
If we use the current definition of semi automatic (1 pull, 1 bullet), than every handgun since the civil war is semi automatic (revolvers fit that description).
Just curious, while we law abiding citizens who pose no threat to society are scurrying around trying to understand the law and comply with it; how many criminals are doing the same????
-George
If we use the current definition of semi automatic (1 pull, 1 bullet), than every handgun since the civil war is semi automatic (revolvers fit that description).
Just curious, while we law abiding citizens who pose no threat to society are scurrying around trying to understand the law and comply with it; how many criminals are doing the same????
-George
Thanks again to all of you for the ideas, links, and info. The forum was Tuesday night and it went really well. It was well attended and by far the majority of the audience were community members (the local fish and game club was well represented), there was only a hand full of students. I was surprised and pleased to find that the other panel members weren't a bunch of liberal witch hunters. The school superintendent was very reasonable and was frank about their security efforts and discussions, including armed security and armed school personnel. The pastor/counselor/college professor was pro-gun, knowledgeable about weapons, and teaches an ethics course in which all of his students feel that there is no need for more gun laws and that we would be better served by enforcing the ones we have now!! Even the social worker was pretty neutral on guns and emphasized the need for better funding for mental health care and the need for mental health and personality issues to be better recognized and for those people that need it to get better care. In fact the only person on the panel that really had anything anti to say was the sheriff!
To make a long story short I will highlight some of the things the sheriff had to say as well as the points I tried to make. At the end of this post I'll have a link to the archives page of the UMM website, they will have the video of the forum available there in a few days.
A number of people took advantage of the forum to go after the sheriff for the things that he'd said in the newpaper interviews. He was very wishy washy and back pedaled on most of his comments but he still stood by his personal feelings that we should have an "assault weapons" ban, only cops and military should have "assault weapons", it's too easy to get a CCW permit and should require more training, and if it an AWB will "save just one life" it's worth doing. He is against armed school personnel but for school resource officers (he used to be one) and says that we should legislate money for them. However, regardless of his personal feelings, he will enforce the law as written and won't do anything unconstitutional.
When I had opportunities to speak I emphasized the need for personal, familial, and community responsibility. I told the audience that they are the true first responders and would face the criminals before any LEOs and that they should be as well armed as the sheriff's deputies that will show up after the fact with their AR15s and 30rd mags. I agreed with the need for armed security in schools and suggested that instead of waiting to legislate money that will probably never be there, we look to our communities to take responsibility for our schools and children and ask LEOs (active and retired) to volunteer their time to act as school security. I told them that my kids go to the local elementary school and I'd be glad to give a few days a month and said that we have lots of LEOs with children and grandchildren going to our schools that feel the same way. I emphasized that we could have armed, experienced, law enforcement personnel on site in days rather than wait months or years for the state or federal government to act. I also reminded the sheriff that 4 states have constitutional carry and do not require CC permits and they have not seen any increase in gun crime since those laws were enacted. There was more but I'm not going to bore you with all the details. Suffice it to say that I actually got a nice round of applause at one point, I think the people were liking what I had to say.
So, I was nervous about speaking in front of all those people but I was confident because I'd prepared well (thanks in no small part to all of you) and I was able to make the points I had hoped to when I volunteered to do this. Also, I encourage all of you to get involved where you can and to act on your convictions, you'll feel better for it and might actually make a difference.
If you are interested in watching the video of the forum, go to this link - http://machias.edu/archived-videos - it should be up in a few days. If you do watch it please come back to this thread and let us know what you think.
To make a long story short I will highlight some of the things the sheriff had to say as well as the points I tried to make. At the end of this post I'll have a link to the archives page of the UMM website, they will have the video of the forum available there in a few days.
A number of people took advantage of the forum to go after the sheriff for the things that he'd said in the newpaper interviews. He was very wishy washy and back pedaled on most of his comments but he still stood by his personal feelings that we should have an "assault weapons" ban, only cops and military should have "assault weapons", it's too easy to get a CCW permit and should require more training, and if it an AWB will "save just one life" it's worth doing. He is against armed school personnel but for school resource officers (he used to be one) and says that we should legislate money for them. However, regardless of his personal feelings, he will enforce the law as written and won't do anything unconstitutional.
When I had opportunities to speak I emphasized the need for personal, familial, and community responsibility. I told the audience that they are the true first responders and would face the criminals before any LEOs and that they should be as well armed as the sheriff's deputies that will show up after the fact with their AR15s and 30rd mags. I agreed with the need for armed security in schools and suggested that instead of waiting to legislate money that will probably never be there, we look to our communities to take responsibility for our schools and children and ask LEOs (active and retired) to volunteer their time to act as school security. I told them that my kids go to the local elementary school and I'd be glad to give a few days a month and said that we have lots of LEOs with children and grandchildren going to our schools that feel the same way. I emphasized that we could have armed, experienced, law enforcement personnel on site in days rather than wait months or years for the state or federal government to act. I also reminded the sheriff that 4 states have constitutional carry and do not require CC permits and they have not seen any increase in gun crime since those laws were enacted. There was more but I'm not going to bore you with all the details. Suffice it to say that I actually got a nice round of applause at one point, I think the people were liking what I had to say.
So, I was nervous about speaking in front of all those people but I was confident because I'd prepared well (thanks in no small part to all of you) and I was able to make the points I had hoped to when I volunteered to do this. Also, I encourage all of you to get involved where you can and to act on your convictions, you'll feel better for it and might actually make a difference.
If you are interested in watching the video of the forum, go to this link - http://machias.edu/archived-videos - it should be up in a few days. If you do watch it please come back to this thread and let us know what you think.
WC145. I am happy this went well and that my cynical prophesy in fact, did not materialize.
Of all the things that may hopefully come out of these school shootings perhaps the best will simply be a realization that people need to start trusting other people more.
Trust the Police that they are not all crooked, bullying, incompetent jerks.
Trust Doctors, that they aren't just out to get all the money they can out of your insurance company.
Trust teachers, that they are there to watch over and help develop your children.
But it also means there can't be much leniency for those that violate our trust.
Of all the things that may hopefully come out of these school shootings perhaps the best will simply be a realization that people need to start trusting other people more.
Trust the Police that they are not all crooked, bullying, incompetent jerks.
Trust Doctors, that they aren't just out to get all the money they can out of your insurance company.
Trust teachers, that they are there to watch over and help develop your children.
But it also means there can't be much leniency for those that violate our trust.
kilimanjaro
New member
Good update, and thank you for working on behalf of gun owners everywhere. We appreciate it.
Hopefully, your local chief of police is elected, and can be changed out now and then.
Hopefully, your local chief of police is elected, and can be changed out now and then.
All cars are registered, taxed yearly and tagged. And, you must take a test and be licensed to drive a car. The antis will quickly point this out if you use the car analogy.
The courts have consistently ruled that driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. You don't need all that stuff, or liability insurance, if you only drive your car on private property. A lot of maintenance vehicles on big airports are not licensed.
smokiniron
New member
CHeck this link from Marlin Owners Forum
http://www.marlinowners.com/forum/g...f/106416-how-answer-gun-rights-questions.html
Lotsa' good stuff here.
http://www.marlinowners.com/forum/g...f/106416-how-answer-gun-rights-questions.html
Lotsa' good stuff here.