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

[Cookemountain]

Do you actually believe that we can control the criminals by imposing more rules on the innocent? I have committed no crime, why should I be the subject of restrictions to my freedoms?

 

[CRBMoA]

These days, I straight up ask them if they watch the news.

 

[billdeserthills]

I go with "liberal twat" on Facebook a lot. It usually get's me put in Facebook jail for 3 days.

I like yours except for the jail part,
I usually write dopey dems, or dopey libs--seems to really get their attention, it's like they know that they're dopey

 

[albin25]

 

[BigDog67]

I like yours except for the jail part,
I usually write dopey dems, or dopey libs--seems to really get their attention, it's like they know that they're dopey

They KNOW, they just don't want to accept the fact.

 

[Dr Prepper]

I'm not very PC which makes it not helpful:

i like (well i dont like, but i like that they say it!) what they say about political correctness in the documentary "expelled no intelligence allowed" great documentary if anyone can find it. i think its getting kinda hard to find soros or bezos is probably buying every known copy and trashing it.
anyways they basically say that political correctness is only an American problem. sadly i think that's no longer true. but was probably mostly true when that movie was made. now sadly you have idiots like the uk and canada making laws for it.

me personally i love and welcome political incorrectness. you have to be able to laugh at yourself

They KNOW, they just don't want to accept the fact.

BINGO!!!

 

[SonicBlue03]

Re: by anti-gunners why I wouldn't support gun registration? I go with the old tried-and-true one.

"That didn't work out for six million Jews, did it? Or do you think exterminating a group of people is the price to pay for a 'polite society?' Actually, how long have you been an Anti-Semite?"

Yeah, I go all logical fallacy on them.

 

[tac]

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…..

The last king of England who MIGHT have been able to do some of these things was Charles 1st. He had his head chopped off one cold January morning in 1649, and a republic in all but name replaced him. Please note the date there.

After his son reclaimed the throne in 1660 - the Restoration - the so-called 'Divine right of Kings' was removed from the 'Articles of Governance' for ever. These days, the Crown, that is to say, the personification of the institution of monarchy in who 'wears' it, gives Royal Assent to Law, but does not have to like it, and certainly cannot 'make it'. As the head of a constitutional monarchy, the present monarch has no personal power at all.

This state of affairs has been in place since that cold morning in January 1649, when the king was executed for treason against his own people.

All the other instances you mention, of seizure of assets and torture, were also history by then. The last person suffering torture by the 'crown' as Guy Fawkes - the 'bomber' in the 1605 Gunpowder Plot. Please note the date there.

As for this - '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 Bill of Rights of 1689 makes certain that people CAN defend themselves, not against their monarch, but Papists. Roman Catholics were held in great suspicion in England after Charles 1st tried to get the Roman Catholic French to invade in his support during the English civil war of 1645 - 9. Until quite recently, no member of the Royal Family was permitted by law to marry a Roman Catholic without forfeiting all familial rights.

In any event, why would you wish to defend yourself against the monarchy? The monarchy is not likely to attack you, no matter how badly you think of it. What might you have done to cause such a train of events? Remember that the last monarch to 'attack' his own people by causing a Civil War came to a very bad end...

Elizabeth 1st certainly had members of HER aristocracy executed, but that was for treason or for fomenting treason, not because she was having a bad hair day and just felt like it.

Anyhow not until comparatively recently was the use of firearms for self-defence made illegal here on mainland UK, as, indeed, they are in most European countries. It might surprise you to learn, then, that over 3000 people in Northern Ireland carry government-issued handguns for their own protection...

Kings and Queens after Chuck lost his bean were, and are, answerable to Parliament for their actions, but in any case they may NOT act independently in any way contrary to the will of Parliament. After all, it is the monarch who has given it the legal right to run the country on his or her behalf.

 

[tac]

QUOTE="Soli, post: 2774796, member: 10133"]Ahh, if I was king...[/QUOTE]

Don't you mean 'president'?

 

[tac]

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"

I would first agree to have boiling mercury poured into my nailed-open eyes rather than put ANY kind of a 'bumper sticker' on any Mercedes-Benz belonging to me.

 

[bbbass]

Don't talk to these people, there is nothing to gain.... (FOAD is my response).

Explanation:

Anti-gunners are the same as a certain group of people that are true believers in most any "cause". They BELIEVE that doing what is morally right, in their minds, and upholding an ideal is more important than the consequences of doing so, or more important than the "cost" of doing so, including negative results. (Guns are evil/bad. They kill people. Therefore if you lose the ability to defend yourself, it is only the cost of doing what is morally right.)

As do we that uphold the truths believed by the Founding Fathers.

Diff between us is that "believers" of anti-gun generally think in terms of process... "If you build it, they will come". They believe that process can be perfected, and that will bring about Utopia, where everybody lives happily ever after. If only we will all do as they say, cede power to the elites running the show, ie govt. (Registration is part of the "process" where guns are controlled, made harder to own, and eventually nobody will want one.) Whereas, believers of our founding principles know that man is fallible, will always sin and commit crime, and will generally muck things up. Systems have to take that into account... therefore the right to defend oneself against other people and against a tyrannical govt.

We know these truths to be self-evident. But you can't convince "believers" in Utopia. It's a waste of time. Some people just have to self destruct inside the systems created by their own stupid beliefs.

And, you can apply this to what's happening generally in our govt today.




BTW, I read an article about the guy that helped the antifa supporter run for Potland mayor. He verified for me (his article did) that Antifa is a bunch of nihilists that don't believe in the value of life, in the value of existence, in the value of principles, the value of property, etc. He said that if you tell a couple of generations of kids all their growing up lives that the world is going to end in 10yrs, due to climate change/racism/capitalism, to such an extent that they come to believe their future is hopeless, then how do you not expect them to act as if the apocalypse is coming? Vocalizing opposition seems to be inadequate for the response. What does breaking windows and burning cars matter compared to the world ending????? They know it won't do any good, or accomplish their goals, but it (destruction/disruption) is all they have. Nihilists, yes, for sure.

 

[Mikej]

I would first agree to have boiling mercury poured into my nailed-open eyes rather than put ANY kind of a 'bumper sticker' on any Mercedes-Benz belonging to me.

That's just one of the great things I see about 'Merica I guess. Well, used to be. Now, depending where you live, a bumper sticker like that would get you car tagged with paint, windows broken, burned, or all three.

 

[nammac]

That's just one of the great things I see about 'Merica I guess. Well, used to be. Now, depending where you live, a bumper sticker like that would get you car tagged with paint, windows broken, burned, or all three.

True dis... Only one side has a voice, the other side has been and will continue to be silenced. Just look at what's happened over the past two weeks with social media and big tech...

 

[OldTengu]

Aside from pointing out that voting these laws in will make generally law abiding people felons, I leave it alone.
When you see two folks arguing from a distance, it's difficult to discern which is the idiot.

 

[RevBadger]

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.

 

[RevBadger]

[QUOTE="bbbass, post: 2830434, member: 36758"

He said that if you tell a couple of generations of kids all their growing up lives that the world is going to end in 10yrs, due to climate change/racism/capitalism, to such an extent that they come to believe their future is hopeless, then how do you not expect them to act as if the apocalypse is coming?
[/QUOTE]

The funniest part of this, at least to me, is they behave that the apocalypse is coming, but aren't preparing for the apocalypse.

What are they going to do in a real SHTF situation. Just roll over and die? Because, I'll be armed up in the woods somewhere figuring out a plan B for the world. And either for real world defense or food, Guns always have a roll in the apocalypse.

But hey, if they just roll over and give up, then it make scavenging so much easier. lol

 

[bbbass]

What are they going to do in a real SHTF situation. Just roll over and die?

#1. SHTF is too small of an event for them to worry about. Real apocalypse such as climate change , cannot be fought with guns.

2. They will still be sitting in Mom's basement, planning their next assault on the windmill. (The Anarcho-Communist plans to disrupt the country enough that people will demand that capitalism is banished and Marxist govt is established.)

3. It doesn't have to make sense. Once major depression strikes, nothing really does make sense. It's all the emotional response of children to being traumatised/abused for years at a young age by fear mongering stupid adults.

4. Nilhilists feel there is nothing to live for, so burn it all down. If there is nothing to live for, why worry about SHTF???

 

[bbbass]

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.

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!

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.

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!!!

 

[Pacific NW Rider]

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

. So Yes, I'm for that."

i think the 2nd Amendment is the correct answer. It gives everyone the right to possess a firearm. The Bill of Rights, extends to all. It isn't the bill of privileges, nor does it say anyone has to get permission to exercise their rights. Which is what registration is about. You and I have the freedom to dissagree, under the 1st Ammendment. This what a free society is all about.

But why do you carry a gun, they ask? I would remark, that due to ideas like, defund the police, citizens now have to be their own first responders when faced with violent criminal attacks. If YOU dont carry a gun, then YOUR first responder is, at best, a few minutes away. How long do YOU think a violent criminal needs to attack you or your family?

 

[Sonic Cruiser]

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