[ibbryn]

Articles such as this raise the bar on the pro-anti gun discussion. Rather than simply responding to the antis arguments (When guns are outlawed...If the victims had had a gun...A revolver will kill just as fast as a semi-auto, etc.) this moves the point of discussion.

The pro gunners should be asking the anti's questions such as "How can you impose prior restraint...what right do you have to change the status quo...do you have a study showing your legislation will reduce crime...how does your legislation conflict with the Constutition...would you ban my gun if I could use it to save just one life?"

[gwmoore]

ibbryn, you make a valid point. Those of us who debate these issues should see the bar raised. You make some very valid points.

The problem is, the antis will not acknowlege your argument, as good as the point is. They do not ever respond with a clear, meaningfull rebuttal, they just quote more of their myths, over and over again, hoping to promote the Goebbels' effect (the big lie).

If we, who debate for the full restoration of the 2A were to ONE TIME, get fair coverage by the media, we could beat this hands down. The reality is, however that anything WE say is always predicated by "alleged", "extreme", "powerful lobby", "rabid" or some other words which make us look like the bad guy in the debate. If there is a way that you know of to get the message out without being misquoted or taken out of context, please let me know ;-) I am looking for a good method.

I wish we had good exposure like the antis, we could clean them off the face of the earth with good, reliable, facts and figures, and irrefutable evidence about the positive side of firearms ownership, but WE never get reported, simply because it is not the ideology of the press to do so.

Keep the Faith for Freedom

MAY GOD BLESS AND PROTECT THIS HONORABLE REPUBLIC

Greg