What's your favorite retort or rebuttal to anti-gun arguments?

[bbbass]

Someone told me guns were only for killing people. I told him shooting PEOPLE was an Olympic Chicago sport

FIFY

 

[Dr Prepper]

I'm so glad that having a car license prevents anybody from being killed. Good to know that we can ASSUME (make an azz out of you and me) that people that pass a written test and driving test will never make mistakes with their cars that kill themselves or others, nor that they would ever intentionally run down protestors at a demonstration, or their spouses in a fit of anger, or accidentally push the gas pedal instead of the brake and kill a bunch of diners in a restaurant. Thank you, I feel so SAFE now!!!

Welcome to the forum!




I'd be for national carry, with or w/o licensing (I'm one of those extreme right-wing idiots ((thanx for the labeling)) that believes there is not language in the 2A that says I have the right to keep and BEAR arms "provided that I get licensed if I want to bear arms under my coat in public", you know, just in case I'm robbed or assaulted... no, the 2A literally and explicitly says I gotta get govt approval for that. Ask me what I think of past SCOTUS judges and people that believe we have a "living" Constitution that is to be "interpreted" according to the times we live in... no wait, why bother to have a constitution or BOR. People even BELIEVE that BOR is a set of rights bestowed by govt, rather than an affirmation of God given rights or natural rights. It is just too tedious to have to correct such people in their basic IGNORANT assumptions!!!) How can I have a "meaningful" gun conversation with somebody that doesn't believe in the plain language of the 2A??? And wants to further ïnfringe" on my God given rights? IMO conversing with such a person is ceding them more power to do just that. (Note: I will talk to anybody that wants to listen to both sides, but IMO that type of person has mostly disappeared.)

But as far as each state having their own rules and not having reciprocity... well, not having reciprocity IS dumb, but there's that pesky lil thang called the U.S. Constitution that says that each state has the right to set it's own rules. Dang it! Trying to get all states to agree to anything.... hmmm WE can't even agree on things here on this forum. Imagine trying to get the Legislatures of each state to agree... might as well pass a constitutional amendment by a 2/3 majority of Congress, and then get it ratified by 3/4 of all the states. Yeah, that could happen.

Welcome to the forum!!!

bravo well said!
can we give this "man" an award i dont want to offend anyone with delicate sensibilities here so ill end this by saying a man and a woman

 

[Dr Prepper]

I don't care what rule book we play by, as long as we are all playing by the same rulebook. Either that rule book applies the same rules to everyone, or it applies no rules to everyone

hmm. seems to me that throughout ALL of history we just cant seem to get it through to "ALL" "people" that theres a "playbook" and basic notions like stealing, rape and murder is bad. imo inability to think critically is the real crime here..

 

[BigDog67]

It seems to me that if we KILLED those that steal, rape and murder, there would be a lot less of those. If my dogs chase livestock, they get shot. Why are human ANIMALS any different?

 

[Dr Prepper]

I generally try to flip it around and ask them why they feel that way and if possible, try to get them to come to a range day with me. I find that most "anti gunners" really just have no experience.

My favorite thing is when they start picking apart self defense for a tyranical uprising, because the government is much better equipped than we are. "Oh, but the military will just drone strike you, so your gun is pointless." To that I say, "Well, yes, but in that event, I'm taking pot shots at the drone. It's like a bigger sporting clay!" And if I run out of bullets, then I'm throwing rocks at it.

"But guns are designed to kill people!" Well yes, they are murder sticks. They are designed to kill a great many things. Including, but not limited to, food for my family, playing cards, ievile paper, enemies of the state, strangers in my house, squirrels, coyotes, snakes...

That all being said, I am for a universal CC license and testing to take them out in public. On your own property, do as you will, but, much like a car, if you are taking it out in public, I'd like to be able to assume you aren't going to kill anyone with it.

Also... The whole Idea that for me to get my CPl it's $45 and some fingerprints, but no other state recognises it, is dumb. The idea that states like Oregon (Shout out to my dad. oremike. Buy his ammo!) have reciprocity with most of the country, so if we all adopted a similar licensing strategy, then we could move towards a federal level one.

But that is where the "Pro-Gunner" crowd gets in the way. The moment you say that Washington should have classes and NRA certification to get a CPL they jump in saying it's unconstitutional and start jumping up and down about "BuT My FrEeDoMs!" Even though a ton of states already have a similar system in place. If it's not unconstitutional for Oregon, it's not unconstitutional for Washington.

**Unpopular opinion time**

Being a pro 2a leftist, I get it from both sides. Everything is either "OMG Ban all scary guns!!!" or "All the guns for everyone all the time!" But there is far more nuance than that. It's not just idiot Leftists who stop meaningful gun conversation, it's also idiot Righties, idiot Middlers, idiot Commies, idiots who just parrot their news person, be it CNN or FOXNews, and idiot non-commitals.

I don't care what rule book we play by, as long as we are all playing by the same rulebook. Either that rule book applies the same rules to everyone, or it applies no rules to everyone.

 

[NeSeR13]

 

[Holepuncher]

Oh, I love getting into this with others. I say.....

"The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution allows me the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional right for vehicles.

The constitution was written for a reason. When we fought for our independence from England, and WON, the first things the founding fathers did was sit down and write the Constitution.

Do you like the fact that you can say whatever you want without being arrested for it? Have you ever noticed what the very first thing the founding fathers wrote? Freedom of speech. This was because England rulers had a habit of executing anyone who spoke wrong of them. It was so important to have the freedom of speech that they made it the very first amendment.

The second amendment is the right to keep and bear arms. Do you know why? Because in England no one could have firearms to defend themselves against the monarchy, the Kings and Queens. If they didn't like what they saw, they executed you and your family. You had absolutely no way to defend yourself. The founding fathers thought that it was so important to be able to defend yourself against the rulers, that they wrote that second.

I am guessing the list goes in order of importance as what they fought against in the separation from the ruling Kings and Queens.

You like the fact that you should feel secure in your own home, right? Well, the fourth amendment is the right to be secure against any unreasonable search and seizure. In England they'd break down your door and take everything you had if they wanted to. The founders knew that it was important enough to list it 4th.

The 5th is that you do not have to answer any questions that can incriminate you. In England they would torture you until you told them what they wanted to know. It was the 5th most important thing that the founding fathers could think of.

The 6th most important thing was the right to a speedy trial. They would arrest you and hold you in jail forever. The founding fathers knew that this was not right and they made it the 6th most important thing.

Please understand that constitution was written for a reason. ALL of the Amendments are important to Americans. Not just some. Not just the ones that YOU think is important. ALL of them are important."


Usually the other person just shuts up…..

Thanks for the great lessons on FREEDOM!

 

[Darby Darrow]

But as far as each state having their own rules and not having reciprocity... well, not having reciprocity IS dumb, but there's that pesky lil thang called the U.S. Constitution that says that each state has the right to set it's own rules.

The "pesky" constitution doesn't say that the states can set their own rules.

Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Are you understanding the constitution to allow a state to pass legislation which would strip a person of their rights, absent due process? Could a state pass a law saying that a citizen of a particular race or heritage wouldn't be allowed to vote? Could a state pass a law prohibiting a particular religion from peaceable assembling? Could a state pass a law that could strip all of that state's citizens from the protections of the 4th or 5th amendment?

I would argue that the state can create laws, as long as their do not violate constitutional rights.

 

[Xaevian]

The "pesky" constitution doesn't say that the states can set their own rules.

Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Are you understanding the constitution to allow a state to pass legislation which would strip a person of their rights, absent due process? Could a state pass a law saying that a citizen of a particular race or heritage wouldn't be allowed to vote? Could a state pass a law prohibiting a particular religion from peaceable assembling? Could a state pass a law that could strip all of that state's citizens from the protections of the 4th or 5th amendment?

I would argue that the state can create laws, as long as their do not violate constitutional rights.

States can, have, and will continue to create laws contrary to the Constitution. These laws stay in effect until someone decides to challenge them. There is no punishment for doing this, so the practice will never end.