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

[Dinglenutz]

And I say, anyone who refuses to own a gun or learn to use a gun or allow others to own and learn to use a gun for the protection of life, is mentally ill, or unbalanced. Because they have somehow suppressed the natural survival instincts normal humans are equipped with.

Some people seem to innately understand they shouldn't be trusted with a power tool . That's fine, just don't project that limitation onto me.

 

[WAW44]

Ahem.... It does not "allow" anything. It prevents/limits the government from infringing on a right that people have by default...

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.

 

[oremike]

I'm own an ammunition business so the proper test fixture for my ammo is guns. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[The Heretic]

Depends on the anti-gun argument that is presented but for the cars one, your suggestions are fine. Couple points which you do touch on but didn't really develop. First, when driving a car makes it into the bill of rights, then they'd possibly have a point. Second, the driver's license is a license to operate a properly licensed vehicle within a publicly funded facility for vehicle use. If similar publicly funded areas were designated for firearms use, perhaps public shooting ranges, then it would similarly MAYBE be reasonable to require a range use license to use those facilities.

Any further comparison they want to make is likely going to be apples and oranges.




See above - I can take a car off my property without a license by simply transporting it. It's the use on publicly funded infrastructure that requires a license.

Yup. Farms have farm vehicles, including trucks/etc. that could be operated on public roads, except many of them are not operated on public roads. I have a truck that hasn't been on a public road in almost ten years - only used on my property.


It doesn't need a license itself for me to possess or use it. I don't need a driver's license to possess or use it. I did not need to show a license when I bought it. I don't need to do a BGC or any other government paperwork/etc. to let a neighbor use it, or to sell it.

 

[The Heretic]

Ahem.... It does not "allow" anything. It prevents/limits the government from infringing on a right that people have by default...

The BOR recognizes and enumerates some of the the Natural Rights of individuals and limits the government from infringing on those Natural Rights.

 

[aljames]

I've dealt with this one a few times. Usually I ask a few qualifying and rhetorical questions....

Your'e right....cars are licensed, registered, taxed, insured, etc. AND speed limits, dui laws, insurance requirements, phone ban, etc are all the LAW of the land. With all of those costly requirements and restrictions are there any drivers that simply don't follow the laws? I would argue that there are people speeding down I5 right now while drunk texting, uninsured or registered, AND unlicensed. Meanwhile, the good folks are tangled up in costly regulations and requirments while the criminals among us don't care about ANY laws that may inconvenience them. Are your proposing the passage of laws that criminals will follow? If we cant keep drugs out of maximum security prisons.......

Followed by another rhetorical question......Are you dumb or just naive?

PS.....Another classic with this type of moron is while they want these types of controls on Firearms/ammo they are simultaneously perfectly proud to live in a sanctuary city. Here's your sign you absolute dumbski!

All of this reaffirms the need for a litmus test prior to casting a vote. Too many dummies deciding the fate of the nation. If you don't have 2 brain cells to rub together....you shouldn't be voting for anything that will affect the rest of us.

 

[federalist46]

I like when someone says 'We register cars, license drivers and sometimes require driver training. Why can't we treat guns like cars?".

Other than the "Cars and driving are a privilege, guns are a right." reply, it just doesn't have the same impact as something like the below.

"Like cars then, if I keep my guns on my private property, then I shouldn't have to register them, need a license to use them or be required to have any training. So Yes, I'm for that."

and we should then also compare the statistics on car injuries and death for relevance.... that would then make regulating firearms nearly not worth considering.

 

[AMT]

Ahem.... It does not "allow" anything. It prevents/limits the government from infringing on a right that people have by default...

The BOR recognizes and enumerates some of the the Natural Rights of individuals and limits the government from infringing on those Natural Rights.

True. I put it in terms that they might understand. It is a right, as allowed by the Constitution.

 

[Soli]

"I'm all for licensing and training. I think it should be mandatory; on your fifteenth birthday you are automatically enrolled in a class in your public high school consisting of a minimum of 40 hours of class, 80 hours of hands on firearm maintenance and firing line instruction, and 80 hours of public service maintaining public shooting ranges, that you have to complete before your sixteenth birthday. Upon passing the class you are automatically issued a federal license that acknowledges your right to acquire, possess and use both hand and long guns. That license is valid throughout the US, and takes precedence over any state/local gun laws around possession. Possessing a gun without a federal license is not a crime, but you are subject to all such state and local gun laws. Your federal license can be revoked for good cause, after going through defined due legal process, at which representation will be provided for you without charge."

Ahh, if I was king...

 

[Dinglenutz]

^^^ Need that double like again ....

 

[Rkangel]

And I say, anyone who refuses to own a gun or learn to use a gun or allow others to own and learn to use a gun for the protection of life, is mentally ill, or unbalanced. Because they have somehow suppressed the natural survival instincts normal humans are equipped with.

I blame it on soy... and reality TV.

 

[Dinglenutz]

I don't need to do a BGC or any other government paperwork/etc. to let a neighbor use it, or to sell it.

This is a fine third point I have made once in a while but that I overlooked. I once led off with this: "Well, all I need is enough money to buy a car with no other requirement, are you recommending we implement this for firearms?"

It turned out to be a bit of an inflammatory way to step in, but it sets things on the right foot. The response was a series of failed assertions that a driver's license is required to buy a car. As we know, one does not have to have a license to buy or own a car. The downside is, they just couldn't get past it so the discussion never progressed.

 

[ma96782]

NOT about guns but......speaking of a retort.

Aloha, Mark

 

[Rkangel]

I've dealt with this one a few times. Usually I ask a few qualifying and rhetorical questions....

Your'e right....cars are licensed, registered, taxed, insured, etc. AND speed limits, dui laws, insurance requirements, phone ban, etc are all the LAW of the land. With all of those costly requirements and restrictions are there any drivers that simply don't follow the laws? I would argue that there are people speeding down I5 right now while drunk texting, uninsured or registered, AND unlicensed. Meanwhile, the good folks are tangled up in costly regulations and requirments while the criminals among us don't care about ANY laws that may inconvenience them. Are your proposing the passage of laws that criminals will follow? If we cant keep drugs out of maximum security prisons.......

Followed by another rhetorical question......Are you dumb or just naive?

PS.....Another classic with this type of moron is while they want these types of controls on Firearms/ammo they are simultaneously perfectly proud to live in a sanctuary city. Here's your sign you absolute dumbski!

All of this reaffirms the need for a litmus test prior to casting a vote. Too many dummies deciding the fate of the nation. If you don't have 2 brain cells to rub together....you shouldn't be voting for anything that will affect the rest of us.

And that's why socialists started with the public schools...
1. Dumb down society.
2. Create morons. (Communism called them useful idiots)
3. Promise morons free stuff.
4. Morons will vote for the guy who promises free stuff...until the communists run out of other people's free stuff to give.

 

[Mikej]

The bumper sticker I saw on the back of a Mercedes sedan W/Washington plates as I was coming back to OR on the Cascade Locks bridge. Now I don't hardly ever get a chance to hear that question, and generally that person doesn't really want an answer. They just want to point out to YOU, how deadly and wrong they think you are.

In that case just respond.....

"Birth Control, NOT gun control"

 

[The Heretic]

As we know, one does not have to have a license to buy or own a car.

I believe they get the bit about requiring a license to buy/own a car from the fact that to register/license a car, you often need an ODL (it is more about residency than operation - i.e., WA residents would often try to license a car in OR because of taxes and license fees in WA). I am not sure about commercial entities - but they too probably need to show that they have "residency" of some sort in the state they license the vehicle in.

Some people probably got the impression that you need an ODL to buy a vehicle in Oregon (probably applies to other states too) because they went to a dealer who, as part of the buying process, asked for their driver's license - dealers need this for the registration/title paperwork (probably regardless of state) as the dealer almost always handles that paperwork (they rarely have the title on hand, it is usually held by a lender, as dealers usually take out loans on their vehicles).

But as far as I know, there is no law that says that you have to have a license to buy an automobile, just to register and operate it on public roads.

You do also need insurance in Oregon to register a vehicle - even if you are not going to operate it on public roads. I wrote down the policy # for my car when I got the tags for my truck as I did not have insurance on it - yet. What I do is ask my insurance co. to start insurance on it when I operate it.

The proper challenge is to ask for a cite of the law/rule/regulation that states that you need the license - otherwise they are just repeating hearsay.

 

[Member 34319]

I can count on one hand the amount of people I've had an actual conversation with on gun rights and such.

My favorite to beat up, is my sister in law. She is a little nuts, on all sorts of brain meds, vegan etc... I caught her once, when I asked her if she should be allowed to buy a gun since she is on anti depression medicines. She paused thinking about it, didn't really like the idea of government telling her she couldn't do something. The irony!

 

[Dinglenutz]

Some people probably got the impression that you need an ODL to buy a vehicle in Oregon (probably applies to other states too) because they went to a dealer who, as part of the buying process, asked for their driver's license

That was indeed the first argument. Pretty easy to counter. I find it's a lot easier to make an argument when I'm actually right

But bringing that up tends to be inflammatory too.

 

[The Heretic]

In short, instead of rhetoric, it is good to know the facts and how to use them, in any debate.

To know where the weaknesses of their arguments are and to point them out.

There are three typical responses to that strategy:

1) They stop debating, walking away frustrated, but do not change their mind or their rhetoric.

2) They respond by changing the argument, either moving the goalposts, refusing to concede your point, or putting words in your mouth and/or asserting something about your intentions that is not evident.

3) They start calling you names, etc.

Rarely do they consider your argument and try to form a logical response. So rare that I am surprised when I meet such people. So it is just as rare that debating most people is worth my time.

 

[Dinglenutz]

Rarely do they consider your argument and try to form a logical response. So rare that I am surprised when I meet such people. So it is just as rare that debating most people is worth my time.

The good part is that usually they go anti-logic really fast if the argument that's presented is sound, so it saves everyone time.