Help me help us all with democrats(see inside for details)

[deadeye]

This is a really cool opportunity that you have, I had no idea the democratic party even had a caucus which was pro gun rights. If I had the chance to do that I would also definitely make it my goal no matter what to stay as calm and rational as possible, and remember that they see this issue from a completely different viewpoint. They've probably heard your arguments before and apparently have not been convinced by them, and in order to change their ideas about gun rights they would need to have the whole thought paradigm changed, which will not be easy.

The issue essentially revolves around liberty, so that is what my arguments would have to revolve around. One of the basic ideas at the founding of this country was that we were to have the liberty to live in whatever way we saw fit. I think if that simple idea could register in their minds, that might even be enough to swing them to the other side of this issue. They apparently do not really look at the issue from this standpoint, and I doubt the idea of liberty is ever really in the forefront of their thinking (or they just basically don't agree with it), or they would already view the discussion differently. Do we have liberty or not? Ask them that. At what point do we say a person no longer has the right to liberty? Only when their action causes harm to other people. Way back in the new testament Paul (I think), in interpreting the old testament law given to the Jews, said the law was not given for the righteous but the unrighteous. The same (fantastic) principle can be used for this discussion, the law is not given for the law abiding but for the criminal. What does that mean? There would be no reason to put a law into effect if it were not for people who did wrong things. We already have as many laws as you can think of saying that the harming of other people is wrong, whether with a gun or with your fists (can't really outlaw fists), and the people who are going to obey those laws will, and those who won't won't. Any further law is really pointless, and will only take away liberty. Those who won't obey the law still won't, and those who do will now have to chafe under a law that they don't need but takes away their liberty. To make further laws essentially treats all law abiding citizens as criminals. You can point out that it is arrogant and insulting of them to tell us we should not have guns, because they are basically saying 'you are a criminal and not trustworthy'. If they had a gun would they commit crimes? Why do they think that just because we have guns we will commit crimes, then? Are they better people than us? If any further laws are put in place they should only target those who have committed the crime, such as harsher punishments.

In a different vein, an analogy could be made with our country and the world. Guns exist. We apparently are the good guys and some other countries are the bad guys. Is our military supposed to get rid of all their guns, because guns are bad? Obviously not because there are other nations out there who will not use give up theirs and use them in a wrong manner, and our nation wold then be at the mercy of any who would use force against us. They same is true of individuals, we should not give up our guns because 1.)guns exist 2.)people exist who will use the guns they don't give up to harm those who are unarmed. The whole idea of banning guns is really just ridiculous.

Ok, I'm probably late for work now. I would maybe type more but I gotta go! Good luck!

Basically it is like the old saying about nuclear knowhow "You cant put the genie back in the bottle". Once the knowledge is out there it will be used for the good and the bad and no amount of laws or regulation is going to change that fact.

 

[rickthecabbie]

In my experience restrictive gun laws have had little if any effect preventing me from getting
anything I want, as long as I have enough money.
With the AWB, I have to buy a few U.S. made parts to comply with the law.
With Full Auto Firearms, a few thousand bucks is all that stands between me and a Machine Gun.
Simply put, restrictive gun laws have only served to put Military Grade Firearms out of reach
for those with fewer resources.
By attempting to control firearm ownership, legislators have created an Elite Class.

 

[optiontrigger]

There are two things that I would add.

First, a lot of the close-minded liberals against our freedoms are that way because they operate not by logic and reason - but rather by emotion and that government is there to protect them. They don't care about statistics because to them, guns are dangerous and any attempt at teaching safety to kids makes you a horrible person. They'll say, "If it just saves one child..." but you can't reason with them that defensively, firearms have saved more than one child's life... circular logic. They also believe that the only way they can stop making bad decisions is for a law to be passed. Keep that in mind with your debates - they'll use emotion to bolster their positions.

Second, there surely will be a discussion about the flood of weapons crossing the Mexican border to stir up a requirement to ban arms. I'd dig up the latest facts and preferrably unbiassed sources showing that the media was hyping the numbers. The idea that you can buy submarines and hand grenades at a gun store or gun show is ridiculous at best. Make sure that the ATF gunrunning discussion is made and put your audience on the defensive.

Economist John Lott has a good website for getting statistical data as well as great reading material, if you have access to them: John Lott's Website

Good luck, and thanks for standing up for the 2nd Amendment!

 

[optiontrigger]

By the way, since the media seems to frown on firearm owners teaching the next generation, you could also ask why the anti-gun coalitions aren't being proactive by getting Hollywood to stop making shoot-em-up films where kids are getting the adrenaline rush of learning how to carelessly handle firearms through the big screen. The same goes for the music industry with the cop-killer rap songs. They will reply that it's the industries' right, and you can reply likewise, with the difference being that the gun industry promotes safety and education. We are the responsible people.

 

[Garg]

The $200 is a tax for what should be a right to have. I believe it was the government fearing the citizens that caused the federal rules rather than the few instinces machine guns were used for criminal acts during prohibition.

I agree with you Deadeye. Since I wasn't around in 1934, I have no real idea of the political circumstances around the law. All's I know is that I think it should be repealed. The point is that we the people will NOT have equal weapons to our military without the free access to state of the art weapons. The pre 1986 ban also makes the cost of such devices cost prohibitive to "we the people" for the most part. Right or Left, we all live under the same roof, with the same set of laws governing the populace.
There are more of us left leaning gun owners and enthusiasts than you might guess.

Good luck Korntera,
Best
Greg

 

[Riot]

Well... on that note, that one is out the window. Which I happen to disagree with, and also, I am a dem.

If we were to have equal parity with our current armed forces, the BATFE would be missing a lot of $200 fees.
Personally I think the BATFE should be dismantled, but that's another discussion.

Yeah, but it doesn't have to be...imagine the states opening their National Guard training to civilians interested in homeland defense (i.e. your militia). Regular civilians can get the training and experience with military weapons (i.e. M240s, MK19s, M2s, ect.) under supervision and training without ever having to raise their hand to swear an oath to the military.

To me, I think the states should have more of a relationship with their militias than this love/hate thing going. State government view militias as domestic terrorists....militias view their state governments as socialistic tyrants. Who wins? Who loses? I think both sides lose when you acost the other as a "bad guy". Even the citizens of Switzerland get government provided ammunition in case they have to defend the country. In Isreal, if you are a citizen and your country comes under attack- you might as well be in the militia because you'll be asked to defend your country!

We've been lucky, the United States...above us is Canada and below us is Mexico. We haven't really had to defend ourselves from a uniformed, invading force in hundreds of years. Nevertheless, does that mean we should just abolish militias? Certainly not! To do so would be foolish...I'm not nieve enough to think that any militia (even organized with other states) would do well against our own standing military. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have one. We, Americans, have let peace corrupt us. Instead of relying on each other for safety, we ask the government to do it for us...that will be our downfall.

Does that mean that Capitalism and Democracy doesn't work? No, it just means that people should stop expecting a free lunch. Our country was founded upon hard work, free enterprise and the belief in the "American Dream". But does that still exist? You tell me....

 

[blinded]

So how did things go?

 

[jyerxa]

I'm just plum out of spit for the democrats. Don't care what you guys do. I've got a life to live. I know how I vote.