Let it come. If not now when?
Posted on 10/23/2015 12:10:43 PM PDT by Torcert
American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-gun liberals. Here it is, in its entirety. Ready?
“Screw you.” That’s it. Except the first word isn’t “Screw.”
It’s not exactly a traditional argument, but it’s certainly appropriate here. The fact is that there is no point in arguing with liberal gun-control advocates because their argument is never in good faith.They slander gun owners as murderers. They lie about their ultimate aim, which is to ban and confiscate all privately owned weapons. And they adopt a pose of reasonability, yet their position is not susceptible to change because of evidence, facts or law. None of those matter – they already have their conclusion. This has to do with power – their power.
You can’t argue with someone who is lying about his position or whose position is not based upon reason. You can talk all day about how crime has diminished where concealed carry is allowed, while it flourishes in Democrat blue cities where gun control is tightest. You can point to statistics showing that law-abiding citizens who carry legally are exponentially less likely to commit gun crimes than other people. You can cite examples of armed citizens protecting themselves and their communities with guns. You can offer government statistics showing how the typical American is at many times greater risk of death from an automobile crash, a fall, or poisoning than from murder by gun.
But none of that matters, because this debate is not about facts. It’s about power. The liberal anti-gun narrative is not aimed at creating the best public policy but at disarming citizens the liberal elite looks down upon – and for whom weapons represent their last-ditch ability to respond to liberal overreach.
Put simply, liberal elitists don’t like the fact that, at the end of the day, an armed citizenry can tell them, “No.”
So they argue in bad faith, shamelessly lying, libeling their opponents, and hiding their real endgame. Sure, sometimes the mask slips and a liberal politician like Mike Bloomberg or Diane Feinstein reveals their true agenda, but mostly they stay on-message.
For example, Barack Obama, who always tries to reassure us bitter clingers that he doesn’t want to take our guns, speaks longingly about the Australian plan – which was confiscation of most viable defensive weapons from the civilian population.
Obama is lying – about gay marriage, about your doctor – and he is likewise lying about guns. The minute he could disarm every American civilian he would, something particularly alarming in light of his pal Bill Ayers’ infamous observation that ‘fundamentally transforming’ America would require killing at least 25 million citizens.
No wonder free Americans are done pretending the gun argument is a rational debate and are responding with an extended middle finger – and the challenge to come and take their arms. The fact remains that any outright attempt to take the arms from tens of millions of American gun owners would almost certainly result in a second Civil War. And we all know how the first Civil War went for the Democrats.
So, through a campaign of shaming, dissembling, and outright slander, liberals are trying to talk Americans into giving up their weapons voluntarily. There’s always another “common sense” restriction to enact, spurred on by a tragedy that the last “common sense” restriction didn’t prevent and that the proposed new “common sense” restriction would not have prevented. They want to do it in baby steps, and with our cooperation, since they cannot do it by force.
So until the gun control argument becomes a real argument instead of a transparent power grab, there’s only one appropriate response to liberal gun banners. And it’s similar to “Screw you.”
I ain’t getting any younger... Not gettin’ any prettier either...
Kurt is right - there is no use arguing with libtards. The conservatives keep running out logical, well reasoned arguments and clear evidence of rat duplicity, and it goes nowhere. The few libtards capable of understanding the evidence ignore it - the agenda trumps facts and truth. Therefore, a simple “This for you, this for your horse” is the best argument.
I think the punks at the top know what would happen which is why they love to talk about it but never try to do it.
The govt got a little taste of it when the BLM drank some Kool Aid and thought they would invade a sovereign state and kick the Bundy’s off their rand and take their cows. It only took 500 militia to back down the BLM and their little Merc fellow travelers and the Las Vegas SWAT. They all had to basically run for their lives. And they have not been back either.
Should we wait for it come?
There are many reasons why there are more NICS checks than there are new firearms added to the stock. Two of the obvious ones are checks done for concealed carry permits and checks done to buy used guns.
A lot of guns are sold through dealers that are not new.
The numbers for adding to the stock of new guns are the sum of the legal manufacture in the U.S. plus imports, minus exports. It is likely a pretty good number.
The more I read about all of this, it brings to one of those Facebook meme’s about gun control. Whoever wrote is pretty sharp. Basically comes down to the gun control folks needing guns to take guns away from the people who have guns. The Lib’s say that only the cops should have guns, but they’re also the same cops they protest every day with BLM. So, if the cops are BAD because they kill innocent black men, every minute of the day, then why are they GOOD when they’re taking guns away from people.
Soooo, here’s my solution. Some Governor, in some state, when confronted with this gun control crap again, tells the group, OK. I’ll do it. You come up with the plan and I’ll implement it. However, since all guns are bad. And you all think that cops are bad, as evident by your BLM support. You tell me how to do it. You show me how to do it. Without violence. Without bringing violence to otherwise peaceful people who are just exercising what is a God given right thru the Bill of Rights.
Of course they’ll have no idea how to do it. They’ll just sit there like the f*cking morons they are and then throw a temper tantrum like the children they are.
Well, how do you have a rational discussion with some willing to slander you with terms like ‘Terrorist’ and ‘Murderer’?
Sometimes I tell the libs “I’m pro choice on gun ownership. I would never force you to own one!” They are stunned into silence, and a few sputter like wet flatulations..
Sometimes I tell the libs “I’m pro choice on gun ownership. I would never force you to own one!” They are stunned into silence, and a few sputter like wet flatulations..
Roseburg, OR's Sheriff, my Sheriff, has been put to the test already. Bloomberg sent millions to my state to enact new gun laws, my Sheriff Hanlin, went to testify against these new restrictions. He also told them, whatever laws you pass, if they are not constitutional, I as the top law enforcement of Douglas County will not enforce them.
Sherirff Hanlin is a constitutional Sheriff, the teaparty members here in my county raised $1,000 to send him to that conference and he agreed to go. We are all so proud of him, how he handled the shooting at UCC.
You’re on to something,,
let me get a calculator.
“You argue reality to such people and they are unable to process the argument. Their cause—their “ideals”—are always at war with what is real; with what is true.”
That is about as concise a description of a liberal nutcase as I have ever read. They simply don’t “do” the real world.
Easy to say.
I had law enforcement called on me because I was carrying an AR-15. It’s a long story but I knew they were coming.
3 county and 5 city cars, about 12-15 in all.
According to my girlfriend they said “they were going to kill me”. Quote.
I had put up my weapon and was watching t.v. when they came for me. Put me in jail and confiscated my weapon.
Took me a year for case to be dismissed. Prosecutor wanted to keep my AR. My attorney would have nothing of it. Me neither.
I did what I did “because I could”. That’s what I told the cops and that’s the truth.
Because I can is no reason to kill or get killed. So, I chickened out. I’d have just been a statistic, cops would have just been a statistic. I had’em all under a streetlight, sitting ducks. Dumbasses.
Sometimes it’s difficult to know when it is finally time to stand up for your Constitutional rights. I failed. I guess. Everyone’s still alive. I was just out the humiliation of a strip search, a while in jail, several thousand dollars. But at least no one died.
Sooner or later someone will have to die. And that’s just the truth. I hope I’ll never have to make that decision again. I guess it’ll have to be left up to a better patriot than me.
Could I have started a Revolution? Hell no. I’d have just been another crazy with a gun. And that’s how it will start. Hell, it may have already started. You just don’t know his name.
When this topic comes up in non-internet conversations, I just say:
My guns have killed fewer people than Teddy Kennedy’s Oldsmobile.
Good point.
I often tell people to Just run the numbers of an estimated 120 Million gun owners versus at best 5 Million Military and law enforcement - in the states and overseas.
Assume only some of 120 Million are willing to stand up for their rights and ALL of the 5 million could be used for suppression effort - meaning they wouldn’t be needed else where and they would all throw in with the socialists.
The ratio still doesn’t bode well for them.
Oh, don't go bothering the Russians. They want to sell factories, not individual sales samples.
Since the Law of the Land provides that A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and it is also clear that it is one of the obligations of citizenship, lest dimunition result, perhaps the condition pof being unarmed should be the one that should be licensed. Those who are infirm and unsuited to bear arms, or mentally deficient, or temporartily disabled [pregnancy might be an example, in some cases] should be exempted, but otherwise, if one wishes to vote, or receive governmental benefits or employment, they should do their part to protect themselves and their fellow citizens.
Accordingly, institute a healthy sales tax- say ten percent- on those who make retail purchases when unarmed. And, of course, those who participate in the duty of citizenship by being prepared and not depending solely on governmental assistance, would not pay such a tax.
Many are sick and tried of trying to reason with people who are unreasonable.
Many in LE know the value of an armed citizenry, they also know they would have to be the tip of the spear when it comes to registration/Confiscation time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.