Posted on 05/24/2002 7:40:33 PM PDT by DGallandro
The first shots of the American Revolution started over gun control when the British tried to seize powder and cannon from the Colonists.
Seriously, shock tactics are not the way. And anti-government-tyranny arguments do not convice the fearful. This is a varsity-level gun philosophy... Not the entry level argument. They really think it sounds "outdated" and nutty to think of defending yourself against the government with guns. It just isn't going to win votes.
Revolvers in the hands of a woman home alone, with a creep crawling through her window, does win votes. Both with the woman, and her husband.
Revolvers in the hands of a woman walking to her car in a deserted parking garage, does win votes. Both with the woman, and her husband.
We have to give them ideas they can hold on to. Real people defending themselves agains real threats they have seen with their own eyes. Not imagined revolutions against imagined tyrannies. Just MHO...
I understand why you think self defense stories might be more effective, and they can be helpful, but they are just part of the equation. Everyone has their own 'trigger' (no pun intended) that makes them realize why the 2nd amendment is a good thing. For some it's self defense, for others it's hunting, and for some, like me, it's being told for the first time that the 2nd amendment was intended to protect against government tyranny as well as foreign invasion. That's not really being taught in school. Having the intents of the founding fathers be known is helpful. And as ugly as it is, the results of gun confiscation did really happen, and the shock can wake someone up. I know it helped me.
Like I said, there are many different arguments that can be used, and just one won't win over every single person. It takes finding the right one to counter all the lies a person has been told to finally turn on the lightbulb of "oh, that's why the second amendment is important".
As you obviously understand, the "just one life" argument is the most hypocritical ploy in American politics today. For a few examples around this argument, see I gave at the office, the check’s in the mail, and if it saves just one life......
WFTR
Bill
Thank you. Gun control people are the same people who think we are too stupid to control our own destinies. Gun control people are those who think that the 'common' man is ill fit to take responsibility for his own safety, they are those who think we need a government ruled by liberal 'elite' types who for some unknown reason have been granted some wisdom which enables them to decide what is good for others. The same type who would dictate endless regulations as to what they think is good for society, those who will bring a totalitarian government (ruled of course by those who 'know what is good for everybody else') down on us every time.
These are the same people who brought you political correctness (or suppression of free speech), the Constitution subverting Clintons, a group of people who think that liberal judges should rule by fiat, the rule of law be damned.
| ABC News.com Poll. Latest: May 8-12, 2002. N=1,028 adults nationwide. Field work by TNS Intersearch. MoE ± 3. | ||||||
|
. |
||||||
| "Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws in this country?" | ||||||
| Favor | Oppose | No Opinion |
||||
| % | % | % | ||||
| 5/02 | 57 | 37 | 6 | |||
| 1/01 | 59 | 39 | 2 | |||
| 5/00 | 67 | 30 | 3 | |||
|
. |
||||||
| "The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows: 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' In your opinion does this guarantee only the right of the states to maintain militias, or also the right of individuals to own guns?" | ||||||
| % | ||||||
| States to maintain militias | 20 | |||||
| Individuals to own guns | 73 | |||||
| No opinion | 8 | |||||
|
|
||||||
.........No, it's always, 'We want to provide security for you', or 'We are trying to liberate you from this that or the other'.
Seriously, people should take a really hard look at what so-called liberals say and do in America. They are as opposed to American ideals of free determination as any Hitler or Stalin you ever may meet.
That may convince FReepers that you are right... but the key to winning gun control is convincing THEM we are right, isn't it?
While I think that there is always a good reason to present the argument to people, in the end we may not have the luxury of having the 'people' agree with us (embodied of course by some fascist slop personifying him/ herself as the will of the people)
But we haven't lost yet.
....sure will........as soon as you tell me where I am wrong in what I am saying.
According to the US Dept of Health and Human Services:
There are 700,000 Physicians in the US. There are 120,000 Accidental Deaths caused by Physicians each year. So there are 0.171 Deaths per physician.
According to the NRA and FBI:
There are 80,000,000 Gun Owners in the US. There are 1,500 Accidental Deaths by a Gun including all ages. So there are 0.0000188 Accidental Deaths caused by each gun owner.
Therefore, you are more than 9,000 times as likely to be Accidently killed by your doctor as by a gun owner.
Not everybody has a gun but everybody has at least one doctor.
Please notify your friends of this problem so we can stop it before more people are hurt. Statistics on Lawyers are being withheld for security reasons.
Do I think the leaders of these movements fit the bill?.........Yes, I do. In spades.
........I said I agree with your idea of bringing a message to that large body of what I'll call misinformed...........however, do I feel compelled to 'convince' or 'explain' to some budding totalitarian why he shouldn't trample on my rights?
No.
The people who write the gun control arguments in the newspapers, the people who write endless politically correct diatribes, they know what they are doing. Talk to them.
'Well, the Constitution is really old, and times are different. We need to just ignore it, it's okay. Some liberal on the Supreme Court has interpreted that 'the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon' really means something else.
Reason with the reasonable, but waste no time with those would trash the supreme law of the land because it 'feels good'.
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.