Need help with an anti gunner who claimes he is debunking pro gun propoganda

R

Ruthless4christ

New member
You may ask "why bother?' but I do. I got an anti gunner on facebook blowing up my wall and I'm at work and wont be able to answer him till I get home so I figured I'd see what you all can come up with. Look at this post he put below:

I'd be intrested to see answers people come up with here.

Thanks in advance.
So, here's my two cents (which will end up being closer to $1.50 I'm sure) and I'm sure I will regret posting this later, due to the "friends" I will lose while exercising my First Amendment, but here goes.
Instead of posting a meme with a picture and a falsely attributed quote or a made up statistic, I've spent my... time researching the gun violence/gun control debate. And I'd like to talk about some of the pervasive themes I've seen lately.
First off, Hitler did not say "In order to conquer a country, you must first disarm its citizens." In fact, Hitler made it his position to enable guns to be obtained more easily. http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/disarm.asp
Secondly, the presidents, and I mean ALL of them, and their families, receive death threats on a daily basis. President Obama did not enact the regulations that REQUIRE Secret Service protection for him and his family. If you believe your children are as much of a target as the president's children, then you have a self inflated idea of your position in this world. http://www.secretservice.gov/protection.shtml
Thirdly, there is NO law or bill being considered that would allow anyone to come marching into your home to take your legally obtained and legally owned firearms. There are possible laws that are being explored that would require more responsibility on the part of the gun owner or person purchasing a gun (i.e. pass a background check even if buying a gun from a gun show dealer). If you buy a car from a dealer it must be registered (a record of the transfer is documented). If you buy a car from a private citizen, it must be registered. If you buy a gun from a dealer, there is a record of that sale and it is registered. So how is it illogical to require the same for private sales of firearms?
Fourth, there are not more people being killed with baseball bats than guns. If you disagree with that because you saw a picture stating otherwise on the internet, then I would like to offer you the chance to buy some oceanfront property in Arizona and I'll throw in the Brooklyn Bridge for free. There is no magical solution for solving the problem of gun violence. THAT is what we need to solve. http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp
We don't ban cars that are used in DUI related deaths, but we do enact regulations regarding blood alcohol limits, prosecute people who enable a drunk driver to operate a vehicle after serving them, promote a DUI campaign raising awareness and educating drivers on the dangers of driving while intoxicated. All of which has reduced DUI related fatalities by over 40% in a decade. http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-statistics
The media is not hiding other gun related stories because they want to sensationalize the problem, they are simply unable to cover every gun death story because there would be an average of 80 of them each day. So they concentrate (unfortunately) on the massacres which I think we can all agree, happen all too often.
I find the fact that more children are killed in the US by guns than in the entire Middle East region, very disturbing.
I find it disturbing that the NRA blames the rise in violent shootings on video games and then comes out with its own shooting video game (categorized for children as young as 4 years of age) less than a month after Newtown.
I find it disturbing that other countries spend in excess of twice as much as the US on violent video games and have a small fraction of the amount of gun related deaths/injuries.
I find it disturbing that instead of looking for a solution to a problem like Newtown, there are people wasting their time and energy by trying to turn it into a conspiracy theory.
I find it disturbing that guns are the third largest killer of children ages 5-14 in the US.
I find it disturbing that a child in America is 12 times more likely to be killed with a gun than the rest of the "developed" world.
I find it disturbing that there are more guns privately owned in America than the next SEVENTEEN countries combined.
I find it disturbing that all of these statistics are not discussed but fake statistics about a baseball bat death rate are plastered everywhere.
I find it disturbing that some people believe that the ONLY answer to this problem is more guns.
Banning all firearms is NOT the answer, which is exactly why it's not being proposed. This country has enacted laws that didn't work before, so they've been revised, repealed, reformed, etc. It's ludicrous to think that as a society, we evolve, but the laws governing us cannot? The NRA states that the assault weapons ban didn't work the first time. Well, you know what they say, "If at first you don't succeed, f*%k it.".
If armed guards are the only answer to ending school shootings, then explain the VT shooting. Virginia Tech had an entire police department complete with a SWAT unit. Explain Columbine, which had an armed officer on staff. When discussing an end to gun violence in schools, there should be NOTHING left off of the table.
Ronald Reagan, a huge gun proponent and signor of the Brady Bill, wrote to Congress in 1994 asking them to propose legislation limiting or stopping altogether the manufacture of guns classified as assault weapon. And anyone saying "assault weapon" is a made up term should remember that every word in every language is, in fact, made up.
And yes, criminals don't typically obey laws, but we still have them. Can you use that logic to say there should be none at all? No.
Let me be clear, I am NOT anti gun. I have nothing against guns or responsible gun owners. I served proudly in the military, I worked in armed security, I've hunted, and enjoy target shooting since I was a kid. And I'm sure most gun enthusiasts are the same way. However, this issue should be discussed logically and rationally, and all I see are comments and pictures that are anything but rational and for the most part, are just viral, inflammatory, unresearched, vitriol.
The president enacted 23 executive actions today, of which only 2 have anything to do with limiting the availability of a category of gun or a magazine capacity. The remaining 21 deal with aspects regarding background checks, school safety and mental health system requirements and deficiencies. Will it be a perfect solution? No. Will it help? We'll see. Is it better than doing nothing? Definitely. If we keep using the statement, "It's too soon to talk about it." after each tragedy, pretty soon, we'll never talk about it.
OK, so maybe it ended up closer to $2.00 instead of 2 cents. So sue me.
 
Here is your reply and it's very simple.

The 2nd amendment is simple.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

The issue is clear and the purpose is clear.

Short of changing the Bill of Rights this is the end of it. Short of amending the constitution, this is all there is.

And by the way, why do they need any new legislation. The National Firearms Act has a purpose perfectly in line with what these people claim they want to do. Why a new law or ban on magazine sizes, why not an amendment to the NFA? It's been amended before. Why not add these new features they want to the NFA descriptions for weapons. Shotguns already have a minimum overall length and a minimum barrel length, stock requirements, etc. and so do rifles.

Lastly tell him as long as he is busy reworking the 2nd amendment why not have another look at the others while he is at it because the purpose of the 2nd is to guarantee the rest.

He needs to stop worrying about inanimate objects and focus on what it is that people are doing these days that are making others do this crazy ****.
 
You are talking to one seriously disturbed individual. I haven't scored it, but my initial impression is this person is disturbed from listening to too much U/I BS. I'd calmly suggest they check their facts.
 
I have grown weary of this.

So now my answer is this. Nothing else matters but "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"



Until that is taken out or amended, that's the law of the land. We all have laws that we dislike, as honest people we will follow them. It's in the law of the land because people out there that want to infringe upon that right. I don't like the electoral college system, but, as it is the rule, I except it.

I think in a couple of generations, the 2a will be repealed.
 
I think you're giving this guy too much attention. And that's what he wants.

But:

According to your ‘friend’ the guns are still going to be out there, no one is going to take the guns away.

Well then you’re still going to have gun violence. With about 200 MILLION guns in the country does he think bad people will NOT be able to get guns under his new plan? They will. Bad things will INEVITABLY happen.

What DID stop the killing at Newton?
People with guns.

In the Norway massacre it took over an hour for someone with a gun to show up and stop the madman that was walking around the camp shooting and killing people.

If your friend is ever confronted by a person bent on doing him harm with a gun or without one (and remember, the guns are still out there because no one is taking them away, according to him.) Would your friend like to have gun to defend himself? If not what is he going to do? Does he think the police will arrive before he is beaten or shot?

Once again does he think no bad people will be able to get guns under his new plan? Well, they will.
 
I don't think you can ever change the mind of someone that is so vehemently against something like the 2nd Amendment. There is usually no way to even have a rational conversation with them. You could disprove every one of his points with real data and I bet he still would not believe you.
 
People say and do all kinds of things with good intentions.

I was in the Army, a Staff Sergeant, and I had had a stressful morning on a weekend. My uncle was in the hospital, heart trouble, and my mom and dad who were visiting at the time drove over to check on him.

I was home alone with my kids, my wife was working. My mom and dad had brought me a gift, a new red dot sight for my paintball gun.

After my mom and dad drove off to the hospital I decided to get my mind off it for a few, I mounted the scope and took a big cardboard box out back, leaned it against a fence wall, and fired off about 15 shots to get the zero roughed in. I finished shooting, went into my quarters and started cleaning it cause I had busted a paintball in the barrel.

After a few minutes I get a knock on the back door, I answer it and there are 3 MPs standing stacked up at my back door. Now the first was smilling but the other two were both standing "stacked" one behind the other hands on pistols ready for action and they were not smiling.

The lead MP says "Sir, sorry to bother you but a neihbor called in a report of a man shooting a high powered rifle. Can we come in a speak with you about it?"....... All three come in, one speaks on the radio, and 2 more come in from the front door, dudes they even had dogs.

I'll skip the details and move on to highlights, I was very polite and cooporative. I demonstrated my actions. I showed them the high powered rifle, (paintball gun). They asked me to go to the station with them while the big shots there deciding if there was a need to charge me with something. I agreed without any hesitation or resistance. My wife had just got home by now, she was standing on the back porch, two daughters on the hem of her skirt, crying as they haul daddy away.

I have to offer thanks to the MP Sergeant. I had been so cooperative they didn't cuff me, take my ID, and he had me ride up front. MPs here will know what this means. I think my calming the wife for them was really appreciated.

They called my First Sergeant so he could come get me. Because they kept refering to the paintball gun as a paint pellet gun, they associated it with rules on pellet guns which are firearms. Yes, I did tell them that the federal government classified paintball guns as non-firearms, still bureaucracy must prevail. They turned me and my paintball gun over to my First Sergeant and reported the incident as "discharging a prohibited weapon in a prohibited area", which i now have to explain every time my security clearance comes up for renewal.

In the end I was not punished at all, my First Sergeant gave me my paintball gun back, said he was just happy I wasn't drunk beating on my wife. And the neighbor lady came over, brought a small potted plant, and admitted that she had called the MPs, "never thought they would arrest me" she said. She was just worried (that a highly trained combat soldier) would accidentally hit a kid.

By the way, could this have turned out differently if I had had my paintball gun in my hand when I opened the back door?

The best intentions my friends, the best intentions. There are many good people these days trying to "do the right thing".
 
Last edited:
A friend of mine sent this exact post to me, calling it rational. Here's how I posted back (taking extra care to be polite, and not letting the steam coming out my ears obscure my vision). Feedback is most welcome; I appreciate anything to hone my knowledge.

---start---
There are several issues I have with the post; I'll fisk some high points, splitting it into two posts for length:

===
*** Hitler did not say "In order to conquer a country, you must first disarm its citizens." In fact, Hitler made it his position to enable guns to be obtained more easily (quotes Snopes).

Perhaps Hitler didn't say that - however, the very Snopes page he quotes states that "conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so". That's more the point. Sure, he let guns be obtained more easily - if you were the right kind of German. For Jews, Gypsies, and others, it was gun control.

===
Presidential death threats - I'll give you that one.

===
*** "NO law or bill being considered that would allow anyone to come marching into your home to take your legally obtained and legally owned firearms"

Not yet - it's the slippery slope gun owners are worried about. Look at the abuses of the PATRIOT act, as well as the abuses of drug property confiscation laws used to enrich police agencies. Remember, Cuomo in New York DID consider confiscation - then abandoned the thought knowing it wouldn't fly.

For a more pertinent example, Ruger and gun owners tried to compromise on 10 rounds for magazines under Clinton's Assault Weapon Ban. Many gun owners raised hell about this because they said if you set a limit, who's to say that limit won't be ratcheted down in the future to effectively back door ban more firearms. Some people still spit at Bill Ruger's memory for this. Well, what used to be considered reasonable then isn't now - now the "magic number", at least in New York, is now 7, which eliminates most semi-automatic pistols (including 22s). No statistical or scientific reasoning for 10, or for 7, except that at the moment whatever value is used it sounds good.

It's scary that politicians with little firearm knowledge don't minimally educate themselves about the topic they want to regulate - the infamous Carolyn McCarthy quote about saying a barrel shroud "...is a shoulder thing that goes up" is a classic. She by no means needs to be an expert, but if she's going to ban a barrel shroud it would be nice if she bothered to know what one is.

===
*** "Fourth, there are not more people being killed with baseball bats than guns."

*shrug* Lots of games can be played with statistics, and comparing across nations always runs into what crimes are being counted and how, as well as different demographic patterns. I tend to put more faith in statistical trends that show homicide rates rising in areas of heavy gun regulation, and dropping where it is easier to carry a gun. Usually when statistics are brought up, the work of John Lott is used.

===
*** "we do enact regulations regarding blood alcohol limits, prosecute people who enable a drunk driver to operate a vehicle after serving them, promote a DUI campaign raising awareness and educating drivers"

Absolutely - we do similar things with firearms. We prevent people with history of mental institutionalization from owning guns. We have stronger penalties for crimes committed with guns, and felons lose their 2nd Amendment rights. It's a "innocent till proven guilty attitude". We don't disallow cars because people might kill someone - at least not without some supporting evidence. Why do that with guns, when the death rate is lower?

===
All the text from "The media is not hiding..." until the part that says "ONLY answer to this problem is more guns." is opinion with no hard facts behind them. I'm not saying he can't find any, nor passing any judgement on it - I'm just saying it's his opinion, and he's welcome to it. Everyone has an opinion...

===
*** "Banning all firearms is Not the answer..."

That's certainly true; however, most of the leading proponents of gun control are very up front about their ultimate goal - to ban all firearms. If they are going to try to ban all firearms, and CLEARLY STATE THAT, then why should gun owners give even an inch to help them? Refer above to my mention of the Assault Weapon Ban.

===
VT shooting - there's a saying "when seconds count the police are minutes away". I will agree armed guards aren't the only solution; a better answer would be to allow concealed carry at schools. Utah has done this with teachers in high schools for several years with no ill effect, and Texas is starting to allow the same. I'm sure there are other solutions to consider, but posting a "no guns allowed" at a school isn't an effective one.

On a related note, remember in the Aurora theater shooting the shooter did not pick the closest theater, nor the largest - he picked the only one that did not allow firearms. Possibly coincidence, but I personally have the opinion it was deliberate; we will never know for sure.

===
Ronald Reagan supported the Brady bill - yup, he did. His record on gun rights is mixed; they shifted more toward gun control as he grew older. Historical fact. *shrug*

===
Assault weapon actually is a _very_ precise term - it means a gun in an intermediate caliber that can fire in full auto: one trigger pull, many bullets. It is often misused in gun control discussions to stir up fear and emotion, and to associated semi-automatic civilian arms with negative connotations.

===
And yes, criminals don't typically obey laws, but we still have them. Can you use that logic to say there should be none at all? No.

I can exaggerate most opinions to the point of absurdity - *shrug*. There are lots of laws concerning firearms.

===
Most discussions on gun control are complicated by the Second Amendment - arms are specifically protected by the Constitution, and they are protected not for hunting, not for target shooting, but for "the security of a free State". Cuomo states "No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer" as one reason for passing draconian gun restrictions. *shrug* who cares? That's not what the Second Amendment is about, and it trumps the "who needs..." claims of gun control advocates. Need isn't the point.

As far as magazine limitations, look at the woman in Georgia recently cornered in an attic protecting her children. She fired six shots with a .38 special and hit the intruder's face and neck 5 times out of 6. He didn't drop - instead, he ran away, eventually wrecking his car from his injuries. Good thing he didn't decide to try to attack her instead with his crowbar; if he had enough motor control and ability to leave the house, enter his car, start it and drive away, he could have had enough time to injure her or her children. Another example - two policemen last year, firing at a murderer in New York City at a range of 8 feet, hit the fellow ONCE out of FIFTEEN shots. At 8 bloody feet! In those situations, you prefer MORE ammo, not less, in your firearm - 7 or 10 may not cut it.

The Heller decision has clearly stated the Second Amendment is not limited to members of a militia and pertains to "weapons of common use" (it also specifically states handguns, which are the most common firearm involved in crimes involving guns, fall into this category). The McDonald decision states guns cannot be regulated by backhanded means (in the specific example, requiring training at gun ranges then using zoning to prevent any from existing). I'm going out on a limb here, but since the AR is one of the most common rifles in the United States, it might also fall into the "weapons of common use" category. Something to think about anyway.

The rapidity of attempts to pass gun legislation makes the PATRIOT Act look like a model of probity; most of the laws proposed run contrary to the "Heller" and "McDonald" rulings I mention above, and will likely be struck down in the courts because of it. So the taxpayer ends up spending huge amounts to defend bad law, much like in California and Illinois with the attempted restrictions on violent games, all so that politicians can be seen "doing something".

If you are going to consider law, then for the Love of Little Green Apples DO SOME CONSIDERING! Did the New York law need to be passed in three days, while giving lawmakers less than an hour to read it? Sure, but not because it prevented more crime - it was because Cuomo was using the emotion of the moment to plow through what he wants without opposition.

The New York law looks like it may be turning into another "we need to pass the bill in order to know what is in it" case - in the haste to pass it, they forgot to exempt law enforcement from the limitations, and now they need to make sure that's covered elsewhere, or else patch it after the fact.

Sorry, but there's nothing in that post that changes my mind on the topic - it's an emotional outburst with some valid points, none of which I feel are critical to the topic of gun rights. As always, YMMV.
 
When a person is frothing at the mouth like that, your best argument would be to be the bigger person.

"I think that ignorance on both sides of the debate is counter-productive. I would be glad to have a fact -based and reasoned adult debate with anyone on the topic of the 2nd amendment, regardless of their views. So long as they are acting like an adult. At least when children throw a tantrum they have the excuse that they don't know any better. I am going to unfriend you now. I hope you send me a friend request once you've calmed down."

Then unfriend him.
 
Wrong answer, do not get sucked into an argument or debate.

We have a right to keep and bare arms that shall not be infringed.

The purpose is to protect the nation as people of that nation, ourselves. This is not about hunting, sporting, collecting, or any other means of distraction of obfuscation.

Don't be distracted, your guns are protected so that if the need arises, you have the means to fight.

Don't debate, say it like it is. If he can't deal then get rough and unfriend him :D
 
Last edited:
The fact that the current Administration and a large portion of Congress believes that they can make your guns illegal is why the 2nd Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights. All Americans, gun owners or not, have a responsibility to protest and petition this action,or desire to act. If it should go further then we are under no obligation to obey an illegal Law.
 
Just a note: I agree, don't reply to the original ranter.

My reply was to my real life friend. She has her bias, but she at least is willing to discuss. For example, she let her son use rifles in the Boy Scouts, and asked me to give her a 3 hour introduction to firearms (I included some range time) so she had a better idea what was involved. She still doesn't like them, but at least she doesn't prohibit her son from them - I can't say that about many anti-gunners.

Currently I asked her to think about the whole "if it saves one child its worth doing", and in a couple weeks we will discuss it. She admits the concept is flawed, and it will be interesting to see where she personally draws the line.
 
I did not go any farther than the initial 'point' (and I use that term loosely) that your 'friend' is trying to make about 'Hitler'...

While the quote is probably bogus, The 1938 German Weapons Act did indeed loosen some restrictions for 'the right people'...It actually broadened the relaxation of the laws that were instated in 1928, 5 years before the Nazis came to power...The 1928 was a loosening of the draconian laws set in place after WWI where many were summarily executed for simple possession of a weapon...

The 1938 Weapons Act also outlawed the dealing and manufacture of weapons and ammunition by Jews...This was some time in March, but the date escapes me...

By end of November 1938 the interior minister came out with 'Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons'...Not sure if this was all Jews, or just occupied territories...

If your 'friend' can't find these basic facts in history books (or the net), they probably shouldn't be discussing any of the rest of the parts I did not read...
 
The FBI crime statistics report is fascinating. I posted on my facebook a couple of links showing the violent crime rate since 2002 (decling each year), the homicide rate (down 10% overall and 16% per 100,000 population), and the methods used in homicides by state, rifles are at about 3% or something. Whoever it was that had that chart earlier got me hooked on the stats, I don't copy the chart just paste the links. Most of my gun-grabber "friends" have given up and moved on to other topics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top