![](http://i.imgur.com/jnP6dSI.jpg"; "”source:")
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 would be, but I hear the crap the media is putting out, listen to the poll results, etc., and it just doesn't flange up with people I talk with. Maybe it is that this whole area is Conservative, but I have only run across two people who admitted voting for Obama in those 7 years, and the vast majority will spontaneously complain about the Government in general and Obama in particular.
Like the islamists, the gun-grabber’s ultimate goal is genocide. You must always keep that in mind when discussing “gun control.” They want to be able to kill you without their safety being threatened. Period, end of sentence, that’s really all there is to it.
Is that piece of crap Pete “Adolf” Shields still alive?
“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.”
Frankly, I have been sick of the arguments for quite some time. Let there be a damn War.
To the libs: F—k you.
Load every mag. Make sure it’s at the ready. Let them come and take em’
Is the bottom phrase Greek for “(screw you)”?
Mu Omega THeta Epsilon Rho PHi Upsilon Kappa Epsilon Rho
Folks, 2016 is coming, get out and VOTE!
“Then they just degenerate into acting like children having a temper tantrum.”
But they still think they won the argument, even when they need their diaper changed.
I would have done that, but I don’t know how. When it come to computers I’m like a monkey doing a math problem.
In return, will do some “civil disobedience”.
The gun ban crowd hasn’t got the first clue about what would happen to them if there was an attempt at gun confiscation. Not one…because the carnage would make the German/Soviet slugfest of 1941-1945 look like two kids playing in a sandbox.
Rough estimates place the number of guns in this country at 300 million when Obama took office, and there have been purchases of new guns of (again, roughly speaking) about 1 million per month since then. Doing the math for those of you who don’t wish to, that means that right now there are something like 380 million guns in this country, owned by probably 100 million – 110 million citizens. Folks here are quite happy to throw around a figure of 3% for the number dedicated enough to true liberty that they’d take up arms against a dictatorial regime, but let’s assume that this figure is too generous, that it is only 1/2 of 1%. OK, that means that there would be roughly 500,000 very dedicated, very well equipped and trained people who would literally be gunning for anyone opposed to their liberties and those of their families. If only 1 in 10 of those people shot 1 cop, 1 anti-gun professor, 1 anti-gun media type, or 1 uber-Leftist acquaintance per month, that’d be 50,000 dead PER MONTH. That’s roughly one Vietnam per month, and one Civil War per year. Note that these are EXTREMELY conservative figures…if 1% resisted (1 million), and 1 in 5 shot someone each month, then you have 200,000 dead/month, and nearly 2.5 million per year. No army in history has withstood those kinds of casualties and prevailed.
Methinks that most of those in the forefront of the gun-ban movement wouldn’t survive.
ARguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon...
I concluded many years ago--after interacting with the Academic Left on many issues as a Freshman in College, that even the smartest of them are in pursuit of cloud-borne wish lists--never grounded on anything real. Over the decades, I have never found reason to doubt that conclusion.
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.
“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.”
You are exactly correct. The left does not have a problem with laws and policies; they have a problem with reality, and they think they can solve it with legislation and policies.
And alternative phraseology would be for them to go play in the traffic....
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.