My Recent Online Gun Control Conversation

[gdcleanfun]

I have had more success turning the argument on its head (as it should be). Here is a post I used on another forum (no longer exists...could this approach be why?)

"Our argument over assault weapons, and all the other second amendment rights are backwards. We are talking about a government that has only specifically delegated and enumerated powers. It only gets a say in those things we delegate it a say in. Everything else WE decide on.

Our approach needs to be that the anti-gunners need to say why a given weapon or weapons system should NOT be available to anyone who can purchase it; not why should anyone be able to get x weapons system. Give me stats that prove an individual should not be able to own an 'x'. For example, "Where are the stats that so-called 'assault weapons' should not be available to anyone who wants to purchase them?" ...

Good point. I'll try to remember that for the next time.

[FreedomsAdvocate]

+1! I certainly hope you haven't pattened this line of argument, because I'm going to start using it every chance I get! Basically, any type of firearm the antis want to ban is innocent until proven guilty!

I like your phrasing! Leave it to me to always make it too complicated. Feel free to use mine if I can use yours.

[Boomboy007]

I believe that there should be no restrictions on weapons (well, maybe up to WMD's.... maybe) is because the government has them. My belief is that governments, from the most oppressive to the most liberal, take as much as the people are willing to give, and then they take as much more as they can. The biggest issue with the gun grabbers in the government is their fear of the people. I think that the government SHOULD be afraid of its people. We are constantly finding issues of corruption and dishonesty in our government. We simply replace one set of crooks with another set of crooks every few years. However, an armed populace does tend to limit those excessive abuses.

I am sure that we all recall the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989. The Peoples Liberation Army (yeah, right) shot between 2,000 and 3,000 protesters in the middle of the largest city in China. Can you imagine two or three thousand American citizens being mowed down in Times Square? It would probably cause an armed overturning of the government. That is the kind of threat that an armed populace wields. Personally, I think that if the government wants to do away with any class of weapons, they should lead the way. Of course, they would not, so we should not. Just my 2 cents, which is probably overvalued anyway.

[fivesevenusg]

her argument with the careless father and child is so weak. you cant punish EVERYONE that ownes a gun just because one stubborn retard wont safe is guns. and how many instances have happened this past year where civilian gun ownership has SAVED many lives. if you dont want to own a gun for your self then so be it... i dont advise it...not in this day and age...but please dont try and take OUR protection away.

[tattedupboy]

I believe that there should be no restrictions on weapons (well, maybe up to WMD's.... maybe) is because the government has them. My belief is that governments, from the most oppressive to the most liberal, take as much as the people are willing to give, and then they take as much more as they can. The biggest issue with the gun grabbers in the government is their fear of the people. I think that the government SHOULD be afraid of its people. We are constantly finding issues of corruption and dishonesty in our government. We simply replace one set of crooks with another set of crooks every few years. However, an armed populace does tend to limit those excessive abuses.

I am sure that we all recall the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989. The Peoples Liberation Army (yeah, right) shot between 2,000 and 3,000 protesters in the middle of the largest city in China. Can you imagine two or three thousand American citizens being mowed down in Times Square? It would probably cause an armed overturning of the government. That is the kind of threat that an armed populace wields. Personally, I think that if the government wants to do away with any class of weapons, they should lead the way. Of course, they would not, so we should not. Just my 2 cents, which is probably overvalued anyway.

Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco? Sure, the government didn't murder thousands of Americans in those atrocities, but it has happened here and what was the response by our fellow armed Americans?

[gvaldeg1]

You stood your ground well, without resorting to ad hominem attacks. Good job!

Very well expressed tattedupboy. I agree completely. I've noticed that virtually all of your posts are well thought out. Congratulations from me for whatever it's worth. One thing that you pointed out "without resorting to ad hominem attacks"; that's where I have real problems debating anti-gunners. I'm going to try exercising more restraint in the future. I'll probably have lots of opportunities to defend 2nd Amendment rights with the libs in power.

[Boomboy007]

Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco? Sure, the government didn't murder thousands of Americans in those atrocities, but it has happened here and what was the response by our fellow armed Americans?

I have a hard time equating the massacre of 3,000 pro-democracy supporters with a cult protecting a pedophile or a white supremacist family who refuse to go to court.

Granted, the government murdered a bunch of people in the U.S., but at least here in the states the people had a reasonably fair justice system to which they could turn, instead of barricading themselves in a flimsy building. I do not support the actions of the AGENTS of our government in the Ruby Ridge case, and I do not support the decision to bulldoze the building in Waco. However, in both of those cases the individuals involved knew the likely outcome. Not so in Beijing.

[tattedupboy]

I have a hard time equating the massacre of 3,000 pro-democracy supporters with a cult protecting a pedophile or a white supremacist family who refuse to go to court.

Granted, the government murdered a bunch of people in the U.S., but at least here in the states the people had a reasonably fair justice system to which they could turn, instead of barricading themselves in a flimsy building. I do not support the actions of the AGENTS of our government in the Ruby Ridge case, and I do not support the decision to bulldoze the building in Waco. However, in both of those cases the individuals involved knew the likely outcome. Not so in Beijing.

And that makes it right? Right is right and wrong is wrong, and what the government did was wrong, period.

[Boomboy007]

And that makes it right? Right is right and wrong is wrong, and what the government did was wrong, period.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong? What world do you live in, Tatter me lad? Everything in this world is a shade of gray. You made a good point in the thread concerning "illegal brandishing" when you stated that every situation with a ccw holder and a potential criminal is different, so each situation would have to be judged on its own. What is different here? I hope that I didn't come across as defending the stupid moves that the government made in those cases. In fact, you know me well enough by now, Tatt, to know that I am very concerned about governmental excesses and abuses of power.

The ONLY point that I was trying to make is that, obviously, Ruby Ridge and Waco did not result in any mass demonstrations, much less armed rebellion. A similar incident similar to Tienanmen Square, were it to happen in Times Square, would most likely result in some kind of overthrow or rebellion.

You are still my favorite poster, Tatt!