Gun control rant

[MarcS]

I know a number of intelligent liberals. And talking with them about gun control is painful.

Everything that comes out of their mouths is that gun control is "common sense", and that any argument against gun control is invalid or can be dismissed for no reason other than it is supposedly not true, without objective criticism. Or that it's a bridge too far. It's not about debate to reach a goal, a safer and more free America, it's about ram-rodding an ideology down the throats of Congress. Maybe it's revenge for the way the Tea Party handled the tax issues.

So to the gun control advocates -

You want me to give up a Constitutionally-recognized civil right because you don't want your kids to see a police officer or security guard, and maybe know that there's violence and bad people in the world. How privileged of you.

You want me to give up a Constitutionally-recognized civil right because you're scared of firearms, despite never having been threatened by one, never having fired one, never having used one in defense of your self, family, or nation, and despite the fact that every night you sleep peacefully, it's because people with firearms have given their lives to give you what you now have.

You want me to give up a Constitutionally-recognized civil right because, in a home invasion, when I come out of the bedroom with my single-shot hunting musket (after spending two minutes loading it), the invader (there will be only one) will stand there with a stupid grin in the entryway, waiting for me to chase him off.

You want me to give up a Constitutionally-recognized civil right because there is a race of people, separated from us mere mortals at birth, who are known as the police and military. Internationally, and in American history, these elite people have never used their weapons or authority to harm "ordinary citizens". They have ALWAYS protected EVERYONE.

You want me to give up a Constitutionally-recognized civil right because democracy means you get what you want. When my rights are inconvenient to you, they cease to be relevant.

You want me to give up a Constitutionally-recognized civil right because I did not do enough to prevent gun violence and mass murders in the US. As a gun owner, I should have realized it was my personal responsibility to root out and turn in criminals and the deranged.

You want me to give up a Constitutionally-recognized civil right because I have no need to defend myself. That's what the police are for. And no matter how advanced my tactics, weapons or home advantage, I would never have any hope of defending myself anyway.

You want me to give up a Constitutionally-recognized civil right because the circumstances under which the Constitution was written are no longer relevant. Our rulers no longer detain their enemies in prisons on foreign soil without due process; our rulers would not levy taxes, to pay their interest and debts, to the detriment of and against the protest of citizens. Our rulers would not use weapons of war against their own citizens. Our rulers would not seize our property. Our rulers would not limit our ability to speak or peacefully organize. Our rulers would not force citizens to enlist in military service against their will. Our rulers would not violate our domestic privacy. Our rulers would not evade prosecution or fair sentencing for crime. Our rulers would not balk at the protests of the citizenry, and would gladly step aside if they were ineffective or unpopular.

It's just common-sense, right?



I blame it on the Scotch.

[Silverlode]

Originally Posted by MarcS

I know a number of intelligent liberals..

You already lost me.

[MarcS]

Originally Posted by Silverlode

You already lost me.

Look, like I said, there's been Scotch involved.

[krew08]

I've met a handful of people in the last few years as part of dating my current girlfriend. I would have called many of them intelligent.

Due to recent events, a lot of those people don't seem very intelligent anymore.

Fortunately, my girl knows better.

[MarcS]

You know, maybe one of the biggest risks in this whole 2A debate is underestimating the enemy.

Just like us, they have no shortage of bad arguments, but they also have some good points, and I'm trying really hard to find them. I'm sure they have to be there, otherwise, why would gun control be so popular?

[ssgmick]

Preach it, MarcS. The most disturbing part is when I hear a liberal rant against the second amendment while sending their family out amongst us commoners under armed guard. We can't have police or armed security in our schools, but they send theirs to secure private schools where an armed presence is S.O.P. At the end of the day, its propaganda, you can tell by its nature....

[krew08]

Originally Posted by MarcS

You know, maybe one of the biggest risks in this whole 2A debate is underestimating the enemy.

Just like us, they have no shortage of bad arguments, but they also have some good points, and I'm trying really hard to find them. I'm sure they have to be there, otherwise, why would gun control be so popular?

Well, before I get carried away, what "good points" do the anti gun people have that you've been hearing?

Edit: in short, those people watch the media and stuff. Media says "guns are bad, mmkay". That's probably why it's "popular".

[DOM]

Gun control is "popular" because there are people who rule their lives by emotion and not logic. They live in a fairy tale world where one can simply will away evil with their good intentions. I have had some battles in the past weeks with these people and guess what? They are the same people I have battled with for YEARS! It is nothing new. They trust the government, they are willing to let others protect and fend for them, it is part of the mindset of the left. I have been fearing a super tragic incident would fuel a massive attack on our liberties and that is what happened. Hopefully MD will have some massive budget issues which are more urgent. The US certainly has more important things to do right now.

They are wasting time messing with gun control when they haven't even patched the AMT (Alternative Mininum Tax) witch if not fixed, will cause a retroactive $3-5K tax increase to millions of middle class families. Oh the the best part is, you haven't had the correct withholding for the year to account for that so you will have to write a check to the IRS by April 15th. I for one hope it is fixed, but they are screwing around with us instead.

[MarcS]

Originally Posted by krew08

Well, before I get carried away, what "good points" do the anti gun people have that you've been hearing?

Still haven't found them. Apparently, it's common sense. And apparently, when statistics and law disagree with their common sense, it must mean that only their common sense is right.

[Markp]

All you need to know about liberals and how to argue with them is bolded below:

According to E. K. Hunt, classical liberals made four assumptions about human nature: People were "egoistic, coldly calculating, essentially inert and atomistic". In addition, people were motivated solely by pain and pleasure. Being calculating, they made decisions intended to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. If there were no opportunity to increase pleasure or reduce pain, they would become inert. Therefore, the only motivation for labour was either the possibility of great reward or fear of hunger. This belief led classical liberal politicians to pass the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which limited the provision of social assistance. On the other hand, classical liberals believed that men of higher rank were motivated by ambition. Seeing society as atomistic, they believed that society was no more than the sum of its individual members. These views departed from earlier views of society as a family and, therefore, greater than the sum of its members.

Classical liberals agreed with Thomas Hobbes that government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from one another. They thought that individuals should be free to pursue their self-interest without control or restraint by society. Individuals should be free to obtain work from the highest-paying employers, while the profit motive would ensure that products that people desired were produced at prices they would pay. In a free market, both labour and capital would receive the greatest possible reward, while production would be organised efficiently to meet consumer demand.

[krew08]

Originally Posted by MarcS

Still haven't found them. Apparently, it's common sense. And apparently, when statistics and law disagree with their common sense, it must mean that only their common sense is right.

If I were in your shoes I would ask those folks how do they have common sense on this subject when chances are they haven't handled a firearm or have had any training, etc. They seem to think that guns have a mind of their own and go around killing people.

Typically the only "knowledge" they have is from movies, TV, video games, etc. All of which rarely depict firearms accurately... to say the least.

I'm tired and can't focus real well. What I would recommend to you is browse these forums and you'll be able to gather enough intel to rebut most, if not all, anti-gun arguments.

Check this link out, from a thread in the water cooler. It's a long read but this guy is basically a "veteran" against the anti-gun "enemy".

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/

I'm off to bed now.

[jrumann59]

Originally Posted by Markp

All you need to know about liberals and how to argue with them is bolded below:

According to E. K. Hunt, classical liberals made four assumptions about human nature: People were "egoistic, coldly calculating, essentially inert and atomistic". In addition, people were motivated solely by pain and pleasure. Being calculating, they made decisions intended to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. If there were no opportunity to increase pleasure or reduce pain, they would become inert. Therefore, the only motivation for labour was either the possibility of great reward or fear of hunger. This belief led classical liberal politicians to pass the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which limited the provision of social assistance. On the other hand, classical liberals believed that men of higher rank were motivated by ambition. Seeing society as atomistic, they believed that society was no more than the sum of its individual members. These views departed from earlier views of society as a family and, therefore, greater than the sum of its members.

Classical liberals agreed with Thomas Hobbes that government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from one another. They thought that individuals should be free to pursue their self-interest without control or restraint by society. Individuals should be free to obtain work from the highest-paying employers, while the profit motive would ensure that products that people desired were produced at prices they would pay. In a free market, both labour and capital would receive the greatest possible reward, while production would be organised efficiently to meet consumer demand.

Most liberals I know believe man to be inherently good and unselfish. Their ideology makes them believe if you put everyone on a equal field and only then will all the anger, hate and greed melt away and the true nature of man will be revealed.

I argue that man is still an animal of nature, man is a pack breed that needs a hierarchy, In a pack you earn your keep, if you feel you are equal to the one in front of you take a look at what scraps you get as opposed to the one in front of you. Like all animals there is certain inherent violence but violence non the less.

Of course my liberal friends think I am nuts thinking that way.

[ssgmick]

@Krew08 -

Great thread / article

[psucobra96]

half the time I have to bite my tongue because those for gun control (extreme measures like confiscation) lack the understanding that it is a right that is protected just as any other right under the Constitution. I remind them unlike a license to drive which is a privileged, owning firearms is a right much like voting. My legal background at times tends to make them think twice and give me a minute to make my point, but I have many try to explain to me the "law" or what it should be so I tend to have to just walk away. These are the same people that would come to me an hour later if they needed legal advice for anything else lol. It just hurts the brain.

[bkuether]

Originally Posted by psucobra96

half the time I have to bite my tongue because those for gun control (extreme measures like confiscation) lack the understanding that it is a right that is protected just as any other right under the Constitution. I remind them unlike a license to drive which is a privileged, owning firearms is a right much like voting. My legal background at times tends to make them think twice and give me a minute to make my point, but I have many try to explain to me the "law" or what it should be so I tend to have to just walk away. These are the same people that would come to me an hour later if they needed legal advice for anything else lol. It just hurts the brain.

Hurts the brain. Every time liberals open their mouths this happens.......

[MarcS]

Thanks Krew. That's a good read.

[Mark75H]

We do not need to convert the liberal minority, we need to just nudge the uncommitted majority

[Minuteman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcS-
I know a number of intelligent liberals..

Originally Posted by MarcS

Look, like I said, there's been Scotch involved.

Good response

Also, check this article out: http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/brown/080800.htm

[Knuckle66]

Originally Posted by psucobra96

half the time I have to bite my tongue because those for gun control (extreme measures like confiscation) lack the understanding that it is a right that is protected just as any other right under the Constitution. I remind them unlike a license to drive which is a privileged, owning firearms is a right much like voting. My legal background at times tends to make them think twice and give me a minute to make my point, but I have many try to explain to me the "law" or what it should be so I tend to have to just walk away. These are the same people that would come to me an hour later if they needed legal advice for anything else lol. It just hurts the brain.

My Uncle tried to use a drivers license as an example on FB. Once I reminded him of the Constitution and that owning a gun was the 2nd amendment and that a DL is a privilege he deleted the whole thread and left his libtard link up. truth hurts I guess.

[MarcS]

Originally Posted by Mark75H

We do not need to convert the liberal minority, we need to just nudge the uncommitted majority

Well, that'll work this time around, but what happens next time some psycho goes on a rampage? What happens next time there's a anti-gun windfall in an election?