Giving it to them straight (guns are metal, right?)
Stormin Mormon
This is pretty good for rebutting Anti's....
"Give It to Them Straight"
by John Ross, Author, Unintended Consequences
The biggest mistake we make is failing to take
the moral high ground on our issue, and
letting our enemies define the terms.
------------------
THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had
guns."
WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals
will always get guns."
(FLAW: The implication here is that if you COULD
succeed, it would be a reasonable plan.)
WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system
where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the
strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You
want to give violent criminals a government
guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry,
that's unacceptable. Better that we should require
every citizen to carry a gun."
------------------
THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting
purpose. You don't need a 30-round magazine for
hunting deer -- they're only for killing people."
WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my
AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for
their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer
rifle, and I've never done anything to give my
government reason not to trust me, blah, blah,
blah." (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that
it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use.
And eventually they can replace your sporting
arms with arcade-game substitutes.)
WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for
killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or
electric chair is designed for killing people,
and these devices obviously serve different
functions than guns. To be precise, a high
capacity military-type rifle or handgun is
designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect
myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable,
most durable, highest capacity weapon possible.
The only thing hunting and target shooting have
to do with freedom is that they're good
practice."
------------------
THEY SAY: "If we pass this CCW law, it will be
like the Wild West, with shoot-outs all the time
for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to
keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves
just one life, it will be worth it."
WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah."
(flaw: You have implied that if studies showed
CCW laws equaled more heat-of-passion shooting,
CCW should be illegal.
WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced
what you are describing, that's not important.
What is important is our freedom. If saving lives
is more important that anything else, why don't
we throw out the Fifth amendment? We have the
technology to administer an annual truth serum
session to the entire population. We'd catch the
criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing
of the past. How does that sound?"
------------------
THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about
a five day waiting period."
WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't
wait five days, it's a waste of resources blah
blah blah." (FLAW: You have implied that if
waiting periods DID reduce crime, they would
be a good idea.)
WE SHOULD SAY: "How about a 24-hour cooling-off
period with a government review board before
the news is reported? Wouldn't that prevent
lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell?
And the fact that this law applies to people
who ALREADY own a handgun tells me that it's
not about crime prevention, it's about
harassment. Personally, I want to live in
a free society, not a 'safe' one with the
government as chief nanny."
------------------
THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No
one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I
suppose you think we should all have atomic
bombs."
WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh . . ."
WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed
this very issue - it's in the Federalist Papers.
They wanted the citizens to have the same guns
as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a
modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each
issued muskets, but not the large field pieces
with exploding shells. In 1996, soldiers are
issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not howitzers and
atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your
logic, the laws governing freedom of the press
are only valid for newspapers whose presses
are hand-operated and use fixed type. After
all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or
electricity, let alone TV and satellite
transmission."
------------------
THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the
powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone
ever suggests licensing these weapons of
mass destruction."
WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there
looking dumb.
WE SHOULD SAY: "You know, driving is a luxury,
where firearms ownership is a right secured by
the Constitution. But let's put that aside for
a moment. It's interesting you compared guns
and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can AT ANY
AGE go into any state and buy as many motorcycles,
cars, or trucks of any size as you want, and
you don't need to do anything if you don't use
them on public property. If you DO want to use
them on public property, you can get a license
at age 16. This license is good in all 50 states.
NO waiting periods, no background checks,
nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a
fourteen-year-old could go into any state
and legally buy handguns, machine guns,
cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot
them all with complete legality on private
property. And at age 16 he could get a state
license good anywhere in the country to shoot
these guns on public property."
------------------
Final comment, useful with most all arguments:
YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you
care about your grandchildren. I would have
thought they meant more to you than anything."
THEY SAY: "Huh?"
YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't
have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the
next couple of years, neither George Bush nor
Tom Daschle is going to open up internment
camps like Roosevelt did fifty-odd years ago.
But think of your worst nightmare of a
political leader. Isn't it POSSIBLE that a
person like that MIGHT be in control here
some time in the next 30, 40, or 50 years,
with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate
behind him? If that does happen, do you REALLY
what your grandchildren to have been stripped of
their final guarantee of freedom? And do you
really want them to have been stripped
of it BY YOU?"
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PracticalSurvival3/
Bill Noble
that is the logical conclusion of your line of reasoning. it is after all,
not for killing people, it is for conflict, and nothing speaks conflict like
a few megatons of explosive power and a few terajoules of released energy.
would you like to rethink your position or will you support the above
statement?
Don Foreman
He didn't think this position. It's a cite or quote of a position
someone else thought. Some plausible points are made but they'd best
be defended by the original author rather than the messenger.
Giving everyone a nuke is your conception, invention and perhaps
attempt at sarcasm, obviously frivolous and far from a logical
conclusion. No mention was made anywhere of government or private
entity giving anyone anything. Your nukes note is sensational but it
has nothing at all to do with the matter of responsible citizens'
right to have and hold firearms for self defense.
Stormin Mormon
guess you didn't read it?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Bill Noble" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
message
news:hlanju$l7f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Gunner Asch
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
So Bill..how many cops carry nukes?
Gunner
Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.