Commonly Used Anti Attacks

fidelity said:

Yes, agree. It takes effort beyond simply regurgitating well known anti talking points, but helps others.

Click to expand...

Yeppers!


Here's a good one for folks to read up on too:

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/?m=1

I went back to re-read the first post. Specifically asks for a list of All anti-gun arguments , but that some responses would be helpful.

Each reader probably is already up to speed for some/ most , and can use the list to know which others to bone up upon.

A comprehensive treatment of every possable attack and rebuttals thereof, would be book length, and a thick one at that.

Narrow down to one line of anti-gun attack at a crack, and various people will be glad to pontificate at length .

Any legitimate student of the subject of the Second Amendment should be familiar with the anti's popular talking points, and their argumentative styles.

Since this thread is focused on their talking points, we can leave their tactics to another.

Here is one of the many 'hit pieces' the antis publish on a regular basis. https://theprogressivecynic.com/deb...g-gun-enthusiasts-anti-gun-control-arguments/
This one serves us well because its a fairly comprehensive list of what they feel are our main points and their counters. Also notice how readily they try to portray gun owners in as negative light as possible. Always look to the incentive, ask yourself why someone is trying to influence you, if the answer is because they are being paid to do it or say it, it loses a lot of credibility. They are very eager and quick to try to make their points as ridiculous and lop-sided as possible. To the people that are paid to do this dirty work, no low is too low, no tactic is off limits as long as they get to their ultimate objective, which simply is to ban all firearms in America.

Our strongest arguments have always been that we have integrity, and the facts are on our side. Anyone, and I do mean anyone, with common sense can do just a little bit of original research and discover for themselves the truth, and easily see through these issues. Already discussed in this thread, and mentioned a number of times in the 'hit piece' I posted, I mention it because it is easy to get to the bottom of - what did our founding father actually mean when they wrote the Second Amendment. I think they still teach American history in school (?), but America had just won a war of Independence against a tyrannical government of that period (England); having armed citizens (literally every able bodied man) was the only way to prevent another tyrannical government from oppressing the people again. Our founding fathers were very smart men, they knew weapons would get more powerful, it was already happening during their time. Simply read the letters they wrote, read the Federalist Papers, the intent absolutely was for normal (law-abiding (back before there were volumes and volumes of laws even)) citizens to not just own firearms, but to carry them for self defense and use them for all purposes including hunting, and sport. It's easy to post a nasty cartoon pretending otherwise, but anyone seeking the truth need not look far to discover it. http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

Thanks OP for putting together this little cheat sheet, it will be most helpful for those new to our side, or anyone wishing to begin to understand or counter the most ridiculous anti-gun talking points.

Thanks guys, keep em coming! As others have stated, providing good responses will help me immensely.

http://www.gunfacts.info

Their report breaks down anti's arguments and rebuts them with cited facts. Great resource.

CypherPunk said:

Should nuclear weapons be legal too?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Click to expand...

I've actually had someone say this to me during a 2A discussion

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

Ghostrider1 said:

http://www.gunfacts.info

Their report breaks down anti's arguments and rebuts them with cited facts. Great resource.

Click to expand...

One of the very best resources.

I've had Anti's ask why do I "need" a firearm?

I've responded. I don't "need" a firearm... I "want" a firearm. As long as I've passed the background checks that the government requires for possession, why do you care what I do with said firearm?

Then throw out why do they have a sedan/truck/etc. They don't "need" that model of vehicle, walking will get you from point A to B. They "want" a specific mode of transportation because it is their "want", not "need".

Usually followed by a stunned look of silence... sometimes the logic hurts.

cdstraw said:

I've had Anti's ask why do I "need" a firearm?

I've responded. I don't "need" a firearm... I "want" a firearm. As long as I've passed the background checks that the government requires for possession, why do you care what I do with said firearm?

Then throw out why do they have a sedan/truck/etc. They don't "need" that model of vehicle, walking will get you from point A to B. They "want" a specific mode of transportation because it is their "want", not "need".

Usually followed by a stunned look of silence... sometimes the logic hurts.

Click to expand...

"Surprisingly to some, 91 percent of 15,000 police officers polled recently by the PoliceOne organization also said they support citizens' ability to carry concealed weapons."