My response to just about any gun control discussion

[The Heretic]

Just saw a friend post the staged video of the guy walking into the office with a muzzle loader, missing at point blank range, and then trying to reload while everybody runs away.

The premise and comment was that "guns have changed since the Second Amendment was enacted"

My response lately has been that:

1) The Second Amendment is about "arms" not just firearms - i.e., every weapon, from a knife to a nuclear bomb. It is about a balance of power between citizens and the government - the government being the greatest threat to our personal liberties, freedom, and even our lives.

2) When they disarm the government, all weapons, then we can talk about disarming citizens. Not before.

Of course, most people don't want to talk about #2 - they see the futility in that, and that we do indeed need a military and police with firearms.

In short, they fall silent.

Read More

 

[deadeye]

You need to remind him he is posting this on a Modern sporting high capacity soap box. The first amendment was meant for quill and press or town square.

 

[Foreverlost]

Well, I will just roll my eyes and respond with silence from now on. In a discussion with my anti-gun sister yesterday; "White guys from Belgium were the killers at the Bataclan in France. Not Muslim Islamic Terrorists." She could not explain how fully automatic weapons were in France where French citizens are disarmed by their government.

There you have it, Sheep can't face the facts.

Foreverlost,

 

[Joe13]

It's my understanding, while not there so I can't verify this - the muskets were usually fired by one person while a 'team' of others loaded them after being fired.

At least on a battle front. I'm sure that didn't happen everywhere.

 

[Joe13]

My response is generally, 2 $10 machetes would have killed more people in any same situation...

 

[Koda]

back then more than one in the office would have returned fire...

 

[The Courier]

I've found it interesting that some have so much to say on topics they know little to nothing about. I feel most responses should be, "Do you own a firearm or know anything about your states laws pertaining to firearms?" No? Then please return to your local Starbucks and read a book... Preferably one on U.S history.

 

[The Heretic]

I've found it interesting that some have so much to say on topics they know little to nothing about. I feel most responses should be, "Do you own a firearm or know anything about your states laws pertaining to firearms?" No? Then please return to your local Starbucks and read a book... Preferably one on U.S history.

I prefer to respond with facts and not reply with something that will most likely be taken as an insult.

 

[PaulB47]

Yes, the obvious response is to point out that their argument also severely limits the First Amendment. That usually shuts down this tactic. It's hard to believe people still try it, really.

 

[The Courier]

Not trying say that I would insult people who chose not to own firearms as I do respect peoples right to choice. But it does seem that many gun bashers are set in their ways, and I come from a family that is primarily against firearm ownership so this topic is not popular with my relatives even when hard evidence is put forth they still have difficulty understanding the right to bear arms.

 

[Koda]

There is some truth to what The Courier says, many gun control proponents do not know the laws surrounding guns at all they just respond to the knee jerk idea we need more when there are already many laws already in place that would have helped prevent such tragic events. Be prepared to know what those are and how to articulate them.

 

[Dave Workman]

What's with Democrats' obsession to 'do something about guns?'

While the Everett Herald and Seattle Times today carry reports about an apparent home invasion robbery-gone-bad in Snohomish County early Saturday morning — one of the would-be robbers was killed — it might be a good time to ask anti-gun Democrats what they think about self-defense.


<broken link removed>

 

[decklin]

There were multiple repeating firearms available at the time of the revolution and before.
Hell, some were around before the Forefathers were even born.
The Girandoni air rifle, the Belton flintlock, the pepperbox guns, the Puckle gun.
There are so many.

 

[Bazooka Joe]

You need to remind him he is posting this on a Modern sporting high capacity soap box. The first amendment was meant for quill and press or town square.

 

[David Bowman]

Guns = Freedom.

This is true because if I have a gun, you can only deal with me using reason. I can't be forced to do something, because I have something that I can use to force you to stop forcing me.

Liberals, progressives, communists, and their camp followers don't like guns in the hands of others because it means a modality of resistance to their ideals exists outside of their control. Without guns in the hands of their opponents, they can use their guns to enforce their will.

Which makes them hypocrites, because they aren't against guns; they are just against you having guns.

 

[David Bowman]

Liberals aren't against guns; they are just against you having guns.

 

[The Heretic]

I have trust issues.

I don't trust anybody that doesn't trust me with a firearm.

 

[ma96782]

I believe that our founders would have approved.


The 2nd Amendment wasn't about deer hunting.
Aloha, Mark

 

[PaulB47]

Dear hunting?

Liberals aren't against guns; they are just against you having guns.

Hmmm, I wonder how that is different from so many on this forum, who go along with the idea that there should be prohibited persons? Or that those you instruct about guns need to be vetted first?

 

[XManSV]

Since the actual purpose of 2A is a specific restriction on government (2A has NOTHING to do with bestowing RKBA outside of enumerating its pre-existence), the current technological state of arms is totally unrelated, the single function of the amendment, the restriction on government, has not changed (or at least should not have).

I would tell them that then suggest "think harder, in more detail for longer".