Please help me with a response to this IGNORANT statement!
- Thread starter Dorian
- Start date
- Status
This was my initial response.....
And what happens, after the government abolishes the second amendment and america becomes "gun free", and they decide to take other rights away as well?
And before you say "they would never do that", they are already well on their way. They're working on the second amendment already, and what after that?
The second amendment is in place so that the peoples voice can be enforced, if it comes to that.
And what happens, after the government abolishes the second amendment and america becomes "gun free", and they decide to take other rights away as well?
And before you say "they would never do that", they are already well on their way. They're working on the second amendment already, and what after that?
The second amendment is in place so that the peoples voice can be enforced, if it comes to that.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
"The people who created this nation tried both those approaches, sir. First they protested, petitioned their rulers for redress, and did what they could to create legislatures that would represent them well by the use of the ballot.
After that, they took up arms and fought a war.
Now, which of those two approaches actually removed us from the British Empire and made the eventual Constitution of the United States possible?"
After that, they took up arms and fought a war.
Now, which of those two approaches actually removed us from the British Empire and made the eventual Constitution of the United States possible?"
Moparmike
Member
Ask him what the difference is between a regular semi-automatic rifle and an assault-style rifle. Ask for a difference besides the large magazine. Ask how any detail of it (including the large mag) worsens the killing factor of a bullet. Ask why he is afraid of cosmetic differences in 2 different types of firearms.
Make sure they dont respond with Full-auto, b/c it was outlawed essentially (w/o miles of red tape and gobs of extra money) in 1934.
Ask why gun-grabbers are so helpless against those that own guns. Tell him its because we have the "instruments of power" and if they had the cajones to take our guns they would have to be complete hypocrites to do that b/c it would require the use of firearms.
Optional:
Ask why we shouldnt be able to have the same firearm (semi or auto) that the current military uses. Ask why the opinions of the Founding Fathers contrasted the opinion that civilian arms should be able to be the same as military arms (and how back then there was no difference).
Above all else, ask WHY THE HELL WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO OWN ONE?!?!
Any other suggested questions? I am drawing a blank (and there are more questions that could prove the point that not only Dorian but all rational and logical people are trying to make.)
Edited to add: A voice is no match for a blunt instrument weilded in a hostile fashion, nor is non-violent protest a match for lead traveling at a high-velocity. Once one has power over a powerless group, it can only lead to the modern-day realization of: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Look at the past century. Ask him what the Jews did after they were disarmed. That's right, they DIED NEEDLESSLY BECAUSE THEY WERE DISARMED AND NO MATCH FOR BULLETS.
Make sure they dont respond with Full-auto, b/c it was outlawed essentially (w/o miles of red tape and gobs of extra money) in 1934.
Ask why gun-grabbers are so helpless against those that own guns. Tell him its because we have the "instruments of power" and if they had the cajones to take our guns they would have to be complete hypocrites to do that b/c it would require the use of firearms.
Optional:
Ask why we shouldnt be able to have the same firearm (semi or auto) that the current military uses. Ask why the opinions of the Founding Fathers contrasted the opinion that civilian arms should be able to be the same as military arms (and how back then there was no difference).
Above all else, ask WHY THE HELL WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO OWN ONE?!?!
Any other suggested questions? I am drawing a blank (and there are more questions that could prove the point that not only Dorian but all rational and logical people are trying to make.)
Edited to add: A voice is no match for a blunt instrument weilded in a hostile fashion, nor is non-violent protest a match for lead traveling at a high-velocity. Once one has power over a powerless group, it can only lead to the modern-day realization of: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Look at the past century. Ask him what the Jews did after they were disarmed. That's right, they DIED NEEDLESSLY BECAUSE THEY WERE DISARMED AND NO MATCH FOR BULLETS.
Inform him that assault rifle, as defined in the 1994 bill is a made up class of weapons and that such legislation is useless. Further, you might inform him that less than 3% of homicides are committed with any rifles, so the actual real life threat from these weapons is quite small.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Except, apparently, the right to bear arms. Who'da thunk that doing away with civil rights would actually make us more free.
Talk about your cognitive dissonance.
First of all, I'd love to tell him that, but I don't know what it means
secondly, if anyone is interested in some uh.... reading, heres the link to where I'm debating this: http://partyecu.com/Forums.aspx?Display=Messages&Topic=14191
Pilgrim
Member
"Political power comes from the barrel of a gun." Ask your friend who said that and what did he mean.
Then ask your friend what happened to the free speaking but unarmed Chinese at Tienamen Square, Beijing, China, June, 1989.
Pilgrim
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Trying to reason with anti-Second Amendment bigots is a lot like trying to wrestle with pigs: you'll just get all muddy, and the pigs love it.
dustind
Member
over 170 million people were killed by their goverment in the last century, over 100 million of them were in communist countries. There are a lot of countries today where you have no rights to speak your mind or vote. At one point in time or another in about every country freedom has been lost by some large group, it will happen and continue to happen.
Orthonym
Member
Point him to Oleg's own site;
wherein (I forget exactly where) Mr. Volk (who was born in the former Soviet Union) mentions that typewriters, computers, and photocopiers had to be registered with the police where he came from. I think one could be sent to prison then and there for posession of an un-licensed BOOK!
wherein (I forget exactly where) Mr. Volk (who was born in the former Soviet Union) mentions that typewriters, computers, and photocopiers had to be registered with the police where he came from. I think one could be sent to prison then and there for posession of an un-licensed BOOK!
sm
member
The Second Amendment is the keystone in the archway of freedom.
Assault+ rifle is like strike anywhere + matches
Words added to another word that does not guarantee definitive descripition on how said object will be used.
I guess I'm illegal because I have shirts hanging on coat hangers
Assault+ rifle is like strike anywhere + matches
Words added to another word that does not guarantee definitive descripition on how said object will be used.
I guess I'm illegal because I have shirts hanging on coat hangers
Why if you have no desire to own something do you deem that no one should have one?
Assault rifle, a term defined by it's originators (German Military during WWII), is a selective fire firearm. To own one requires you to be regulated by the federal government. If the government decides that you can own one who are you to dispute it?
Were it not for the gun revolutions could not exist if the government decides to change policy. Government could abolish free speech, abolish the voting process to secure their jobs, and there would be nothing you could do about it. Just because it hasn't happened the possiblity exists, but the presence of the gun keeps it in check.
Hardtarget
Member
My response to a similar statement was" If you are willing to start giving up your rights in the constitution, and the 2nd is where you want to start, then sit down right now and prioritize the bill of rights so you'll know which one to give up next...that way you will not be surprised when the last right you've got disappears." It didn't seem to help. Once that mindset takes hold its hard to shake it loose! Good luck.
Mark
Mark
Sunray
Member
That's easy. Tell him if his government/antigun people takes one type of firearm, they'll be back for his hunting rifle. Tell him his government wants to define a "sniper rifle" as any scoped rifle. That includes his hunting rifle. Ask him why a military rifle is any different than his hunting rifle. Then ask him if he'd like to shoot one of yours. Letting him shoot one of your's will generally cure most shooters of this kind of silliness.
You could try the stand together or hang separately line too, but taking him shooting will likely work better and faster.
You could try the stand together or hang separately line too, but taking him shooting will likely work better and faster.
six 4 sure
Member
I'd ask him what he hunts with. If it's a 10/22 that's an assualt rifle to some. Ask him if he bird hunts with an semi-auto shutgun that is capable of holding 5 rounds or more, guess what? that's an "assualt rifle" too. Chances are if he hunts and shoots he owns an "assualt rifle" and doesn't know.
six
six
Remember that most people, including shooters and hunters, have no idea what the term "assault weapon" mean in law.
One example I give is that the rifle action functions just like the rifle that President Teddy Roosevelt's rifle.
Often, if you start with the definition and explanation of what actually is included in the very loose definition of "assault weapon," the rest is easy.
Often, the volume goes up because each party is talking about something different, with the same name.
One example I give is that the rifle action functions just like the rifle that President Teddy Roosevelt's rifle.
Often, if you start with the definition and explanation of what actually is included in the very loose definition of "assault weapon," the rest is easy.
Often, the volume goes up because each party is talking about something different, with the same name.
Tamara
Senior Member
They use hoses to clean people who "voiced their opinions" off the treads of tanks.
XLMiguel
Member
Assault is a BEHAVIOUR, not a DEVICE!
It's a specious argument. Virtually anything in the room could be used as a weapon if that is one's intent. Arbitrary 'definitions' for an inanimate object have nothing to do with its use.
It's a specious argument. Virtually anything in the room could be used as a weapon if that is one's intent. Arbitrary 'definitions' for an inanimate object have nothing to do with its use.
Waitone
Member
Do not fall for the trap of debating until the definiton of key terms is understood and mutually agreed upon.
You must get a definition of "assault rifle" agreed to by both parties before proceeding to debating other issues.
The quotation leads me to believe its source suscribes to the "inherent evil" theory of firearms definition. If true, no amount of logic and common sense will dent the author's helmet.
You must get a definition of "assault rifle" agreed to by both parties before proceeding to debating other issues.
The quotation leads me to believe its source suscribes to the "inherent evil" theory of firearms definition. If true, no amount of logic and common sense will dent the author's helmet.
Devonai
Member
Cognitive dissonance is a rift between what you percieve and what you believe. It is a feeling of confusion and anxiety caused by the prospect that long held beliefs or things thought to be fact may not be true, or may be different from what you thought.
For instance, if I hold the belief that the second amendment applies to individuals, and somebody poses a rational and believable argument that it applies only to the National Guard, that may cause cognitive dissonance. It would also cause the desire to back up my own beliefs and refute those opposing viewpoints.
Thank you Psychology 201...
Jeff OTMG
Member
Addressing his 'assault rifle comment:
1. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting and was not written with hunting in mind.
To prove this we can look at quotes from the Founding Fathers. Note that they refer to 'arms' and 'weapons', as oppose to guns or firearms. Terms which might be used to describe hunting or target guns. Nobody would take a 'weapon' after a target. :
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms....." Samuel Adams, United States Congress, Bill of Rights Ratification, 1779
"It is because the people are citizens that they are with safety armed. The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the government, not to the society." Joel Barlow: Equality in America, 1792
"No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the State. Such are a well regulated Militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen, and husbandman; who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen." James Madison, United States Congress, Bill of Rights Ratification, 1779
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law abiding deprived the use of them." Thomas Paine, 1775.
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution" (1787)
"To disarm the people - that was the best and most effective way to enslave them ...." George Mason ( Framer of the Declaration of Rights, Virginia, 1776, which became the basis for the U.S. Bill of Rights ) 3 Elliot, Debate at 380.
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debate at 646
"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ...." Samuel Adams, "Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789
"No Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms in his own lands or tenements." Thomas Jefferson, from the Virginia Constitution, Third Draft
"the people are confirmed by the next article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Trench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution", under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789
"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the UAS, 471 (1788)
2. In U.S. v. Miller (1939) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174 The court stated:
"... these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. "
The M16 and M4 are the assault rifles 'in common use' right now. Therefore, the semiautomatic versions of the M16 are EXACTLY the type of rifles protected by the Second Amendment. If anything, the Second does not protect double barrel shotguns or single shot target rifles.
As far as his comment on keeping our freedoms, the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment as the means to protect our rights. As shown below:
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. Where in the name of common sense are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens?" "The Federalist" (No. 29) Alexander Hamilton
"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands... Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms... Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
"The Federalist" (No. 46) James Madison
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.
1. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting and was not written with hunting in mind.
To prove this we can look at quotes from the Founding Fathers. Note that they refer to 'arms' and 'weapons', as oppose to guns or firearms. Terms which might be used to describe hunting or target guns. Nobody would take a 'weapon' after a target. :
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms....." Samuel Adams, United States Congress, Bill of Rights Ratification, 1779
"It is because the people are citizens that they are with safety armed. The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the government, not to the society." Joel Barlow: Equality in America, 1792
"No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the State. Such are a well regulated Militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen, and husbandman; who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen." James Madison, United States Congress, Bill of Rights Ratification, 1779
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law abiding deprived the use of them." Thomas Paine, 1775.
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution" (1787)
"To disarm the people - that was the best and most effective way to enslave them ...." George Mason ( Framer of the Declaration of Rights, Virginia, 1776, which became the basis for the U.S. Bill of Rights ) 3 Elliot, Debate at 380.
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debate at 646
"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ...." Samuel Adams, "Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789
"No Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms in his own lands or tenements." Thomas Jefferson, from the Virginia Constitution, Third Draft
"the people are confirmed by the next article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Trench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution", under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789
"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the UAS, 471 (1788)
2. In U.S. v. Miller (1939) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174 The court stated:
"... these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. "
The M16 and M4 are the assault rifles 'in common use' right now. Therefore, the semiautomatic versions of the M16 are EXACTLY the type of rifles protected by the Second Amendment. If anything, the Second does not protect double barrel shotguns or single shot target rifles.
As far as his comment on keeping our freedoms, the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment as the means to protect our rights. As shown below:
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. Where in the name of common sense are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens?" "The Federalist" (No. 29) Alexander Hamilton
"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands... Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms... Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
"The Federalist" (No. 46) James Madison
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.
Lots of firearm owners, let alone non-owners, echo the sentiment you are so frustrated by.
I used to be one of them. Trust me, no amount of "fringe-loony" sounding semantics will win anyone over. Calm, drawn out, rational arguments, as devoid of Second Amendment references and Founding father quotes as possible is what is in order. Oh, and the body language has to match the message.
Trips to the firing range, the careful and calculated fostering of firearms related interest, etc all helps.
I used to be one of them. Trust me, no amount of "fringe-loony" sounding semantics will win anyone over. Calm, drawn out, rational arguments, as devoid of Second Amendment references and Founding father quotes as possible is what is in order. Oh, and the body language has to match the message.
Trips to the firing range, the careful and calculated fostering of firearms related interest, etc all helps.
- Status
