Gun Rights Advocates Have A Devastating New Argument Against Gun Control. Here It Is.

The Journal -Independent Journal Review ^ | July 2015 | Kurt Schlichter

[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.”

[Malone LaVeigh]

Actually, the word is english, spelled phonetically with greek letters ... mother****er.

[Torcert]

Let’s be blunt about it – they can only implement their extremist socialist ideology at the point of a gun.

That doesn’t work out too well when the people can shoot back.

[marktwain]

Your estimates of firearms numbers are quite good. Here are the facts and graphics to back them up:

Over the fifteen years that have been recorded, there have been 1.685 NICS checks for each additional firearm added to the private stock in the United States.  Multiplying the NICS check numbers (provided monthly by the FBI) by .5934 gives us a good approximation of the firearms added.

At the end of 2013, the private firearm stock in the United States is estimated at 363.3 million firearms.  16 million were added in 2013.   According the the FBI figures, the NICS checks for 2014 were 20.969 million.  That would be another 12.44 million firearms added in 2014.

In the first seven months of 2015, there were an additional 12.067 million NICS checks.  Another 7.16 million firearms were added.  Continuing that rate for the whole year would bring the total to 12.277 million added in 2015.

At the end of 2015, the stock should be at 388+ million firearms.  Given the current trend, another 12 million or more firearms will be added in 2016, bringing the total stock to 400 million+ firearms by the end of the Obama presidency.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/09/us-will-reach-400-million-private.html

[TalBlack]

Hell, welcom to the club. This has for some time now been my response to any lib who opens his damn mouth. They don’t discuss anything. Rather they name call and damn and demean. There is nothing to talk about anymore. Never was but only now are most people realizing it.

[Torcert]

That’s OK, I’m perfectly willing to credit you will bringing it to my attention.

It is something people should bookmark for future arguments whenever there is a ‘crisis’ the gun grabbers can try to use in destroying our rights.

[Sergio]

Plus their “compromises” are fake.

So whenever a liberal tells me that I need to learn how to "compromise", I respond with, "Sure, we can compromise, so what you are going to give up. I mean in a compromise, both parties have to give up something so what are you going to give up?"

This usually stops the conversation as they they realize they have been exposed as being manipulative liars. I know, I'm being redundant.

Liberal - "But...but...why should I have to give up anything?"

[Torcert]

And for the most part they act the same wherever they are.

[TigersEye]

Lexington, Concord and Thermopylae!

Figure it out for yourselves, libtards.

[TigersEye]

Now I must have that shirt!

[farming pharmer]

ping

[Malone LaVeigh]

Cafe Press

[wgmalabama]

Compromise is the enemy/antagonist of winning. There is no gun control debate. It’s either constitutionally protected or they are in violation of God given rights. If in violation then it’s game on!

[TigersEye]

Thank you! I will be getting that.

[Ancesthntr]

Thanks for the website - I had seen the analysis, but lost track of where it was...and it is useful to totally shock the anti-gunners with this information. Many of them seem to think that it is only about 10 million “gun nuts” with an AR, plus a bunch of old farmers and ranchers. Well, not quite, there are MANY others, and the number of guns available to give to the unarmed is simply astounding.

I do take a bit of issue with “Over the fifteen years that have been recorded, there have been 1.685 NICS checks for each additional firearm added to the private stock in the United States.” That doesn’t seem right - that would imply that a lot of the NICS checks deny people the ability to legally buy a gun, and certainly doesn’t include a LOT of people who are able to buy a gun simply by flashing a valid carry license (hence no NICS check, but one or more new guns).

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

He took the dirt nap many years ago. He turned his organization over to the Brady Bunch before he choked and croaked.

[muir_redwoods]

my comments would end with, “molon labe”

[ripley]

“...and you can’t ‘compromise’ with someone who will be back time and time again with more demands about surrendering your freedom.”

It’s too bad that so many people in the electorate support school yard bullies who take lunch money in the form of an ocean of taxpayer money. They love it when the people who are scammed into higher taxes are less and less able to defend themselves, they just love it.

IMHO

[RKBA Democrat]

This is a positive article. Finally it’s beginning to get the nut of the problem: conservatives are playing a rigged game when it comes to politics.

The only way to win a rigged game is not to play. Three card monte? You can’t win. Shell game? You can’t win. Electoral politics? You can’t win.

Walk away and find a different game.

[sergeantdave]

What a fine article. The gist:

How to argue with a liberal - F*** you.

[Oatka]

You argue with them to keep the mushy middle folks from accepting their arguments.

That's EXACTLY why I continue to post on various newspapers/blogs that run anti-gun arguments. Here, you just preach to the choir, so you have to go on their turf - if not to convert the fence-sitters then at least show 'em an alternative argument - or show them how they are being lied to.

I usually end my post with "We are not dealing with ethical people here." in the hopes that a few of 'em might say, "Hey, wait a minute!".