The other half:
15) When they express anger, law-abiding gun owners are
presented as "extremists" in today's media.
American public servants surrounded by armed bodyguards
and/or living in neighborhoods with private security are
telling law-abiding citizens we cannot carry or even own
(some cities/states) a gun--not even to protect ourselves
and our families. Do you see the hypocrisy?
Can you understand why tolerance pushed beyond a limit
of fairness leads to justifiable anger? Can you
understand why being told we cannot enjoy the same safety
our leaders enjoy invokes outrage? Is a politician's life
more important than your life? If so, why?
16) Mainstream media, which uses the publicly-owned
electromagnetic spectrum to broadcast, has clearly proven
to be biased against guns; it is not presenting both
sides of the issue. (See
http://www.keepandbeararms.org/media_bias.htm) On the
other hand,
http://www.citizensofamerica.org has a media
program that presents the pro-gun side of the
story. If you believe in "equality" regarding
public property, should COA be given free media time to
present their case? And just why IS the media so biased
in the first place? (And why might the government be
anti-gun?)
17) In many areas of the nation, a woman who is being
stalked by her ex-husband must wait 10 days to purchase a
gun--even if her life has been threatened. Why should
law-abiding people in fear of their lives wait 10 days to
get a gun when criminals have no waiting periods?
18) Criminals often kill people who've already turned
over their money and put up no resistance. If a woman
does not resist and the criminal intends to rape her, she
will be raped. Do you think the government has a right to
require women to submit to rape? If so, why?
19) Are we supposed to simply Submit when confronted with
an armed rapist or murderer and leave our ourselves at
their mercy? If so, why? Can you see how our society
would revert to utter lawlessness if everyone agreed to
simply submit to armed criminals?
20) Many anti-gun people use child gun-related accidents
and/or deaths as a reason for banning guns. Seeing that
more children drown every year than are killed by guns,
do you support banning swimming pools?
21) Current federal law now limits the capacity of a
gun's magazine to 10 rounds. Police often empty their
guns without ever stopping a criminal. If you were out
alone at a roadside rest area and were approached by 3
hardened criminals with obvious intent to do you harm,
would you want to be limited to only 10 rounds?
22) Cars are commonly used to commit crimes. Far more
people die in cars every year than by guns--and no
Constitutional Amendment guarantees our rights to own
cars. Because more people die every year in cars than by
guns, do you support a ban on cars? There are also an
alarming number of crimes committed under the influence
of alcohol. Would you support a ban on alcohol
considering it didn't work the last time they tried it?
23) Mayors of several cities in America are suing gun
manufacturers under the guise of recovering costs of
gun-related injuries which took place in their cities.
Because more people are hurt or killed in cars than by
guns, do you support these mayors in suing car
manufacturers?
24) Numerous cities in America criminalize carrying guns
for self-defense. These same cities make exceptions for
people carrying money and jewels. Do you agree that money
and jewels are more important to protect than people's
lives?
25) The National Guard is paid by the Federal government,
occupies property leased to the Federal government, uses
weapons owned by the Federal government, and punishes
trespassers under Federal law. Do you truly believe the
National Guard is a State agency?
26) The National Guard is also what is commonly called
the modern-day militia in anti-gun propaganda as a way of
trying to deal with the Second Amendment. If the
Constitution was referring to the National Guard with the
term "militia," how can we account for the fact
that the Second Amendment was ratified in 1787--while the
National Guard was created by an act of Congress in 1917?
27) The FBI and ATF (agencies of the Federal government)
gunned down innocent women and children and burned most
of the evidence down to the ground in Waco. They murdered
Randy Weaver's wife. The police and other state agencies
shot to death Donald Scott in a bogus drug raid in
California. Why would you trust these government agencies
with fully automatic weapons but not trust a law-abiding
individual with a simple self-defense handgun?
28) The law-abiding gun owners of today are presented as
"gun nuts, extremists, militia fanatics, and
killers" in the communications media. Is it possible
they are depicted this way to sway public opinion toward
disliking guns? If so, why would they do that? How is
this different from the way the news organs of Nazi
Germany, China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and Cuba
propagandized against the segments of their societies
that opposed complete state control?
29) Many documented statements by anti-gun groups claim
that the Second Amendment refers to the power of the
States to keep and bear arms. In other sections of the
Constitution, we find the following: "the right of
the PEOPLE to peaceably assemble," the "right of
the PEOPLE to be secure in their homes,"
"enumeration here of certain rights shall not be
construed to disparage others retained by the
PEOPLE," and "the powers not delegated herein are
reserved to the states respectively, and to the
PEOPLE." Do you honestly believe "the right of
the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" refers to the
States but excludes Individuals?
30) Handguns are the cheapest, lightest, most portable,
easiest-to-use, and most effective means of self-defense.
This is why they are used by police officers. Denying
people the right to use this tool leaves them
defenseless against criminals on the street. Why do you
advocate that law-abiding people not be allowed to
protect themselves with the best means of self-defense available?
31) The Federal government and the United Nations (See:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19991207_xex_n_coming_yo.shtml) have been working in unison for years to systematically disarm American citizens. Is it even remotely possible that the government has something planned that so many Americans would be against that it is critical that they disarm us? If so, do you see that supporting their disarmament plans could be working against the American citizens committed to preserving freedom?
