I used to be Ultra-Anti-Gun but now Im somewhat Anti-Gun

[ClayTrainor]

Can someone help me refute some of this?

I used to be Ultra-Anti-Gun but now Im somewhat Anti-Gun

The Gun protecting liberty myth is a bit overblown imo, owning guns as not prevented the Media from lying about Iraq or serving as propaganda for the Gov, AIPAC or Big Busniess, not prevented the Patriot Act, the dismantlement of the bill of rights, not Prevented secret NSA wiretap, not preventing your name for being on a No-Fly zone for secret reasons without any say about it, not preventing detention without representation if "they" "say" your an enemy combattant without a shread of evidence. The US is turning into a Police State, that you own a gun or not isnt making any difference.
Its not preventing the looting either, in the old days vikings or pirates would raid and plunder the coast take everything and sail off, having a sword or a weapon could allow the population some chance at protecting itself, but now its innefectual to prevent modern plundering; Paulson hands trillions of your money to Banksters that transfer it to offshore accounts, Big Business are dismantling whole factories sailing off to China and India and transfering pension funds into war profiteering coffers like Halliburton that relocates its headquaters to Dubai; so even if you pack a gun they can strip you of your rights, strip the US of much of its wealth, and leave a pile of Debt behind.

Im not sure about gun control though I better understand the urge to posses one(though not the effectiveness), I think one is more likely to shoot a family member or something that an evil doers and people kill each other by the thousands without it protecting liberties one bit, but I am in favor local militias that are well armed, but still something more than guns is required to keep the media from being a propaganda piece and keep the gov in check...

 

[phill4paul]

From that quote it seems that the belief is that if you have them what good are they doing you when the government is ramming things down our throats.

I would start off by saying that owning a firearm does not equate with violence. Owning a firearm is first and foremost for the prevention of violence.

On the personal side it allows you to protect yourself and others against those which would cause PHYSICAL harm to you.

Every gun owner that I know would rather not have to use their firearm. Using your firearm will mean that someone will die and is used as the LAST resort.

Obviously, the majority firearms owners still believe there can be a peaceful end to government encroachment.

 

[dannno]

I disagree with his entire presumption that guns have not slowed the progression of our tyrannical government.

If we didn't have guns, they would have screwed us a long time ago.

 

[ClayTrainor]

From that quote it seems that the belief is that if you have them what good are they doing you when the government is ramming things down our throats.

I would start off by saying that owning a firearm does not equate with violence. Owning a firearm is first and foremost for the prevention of violence.

On the personal side it allows you to protect yourself and others against those which would cause PHYSICAL harm to you.

Every gun owner that I know would rather not have to use their firearm. Using your firearm will mean that someone will die and is used as the LAST resort.

Obviously, the majority firearms owners still believe there can be a peaceful end to government encroachment.

This is a great way of looking at it, thanks

I disagree with his entire presumption that guns have not slowed the progression of our tyrannical government.

If we didn't have guns, they would have screwed us a long time ago.

I agree, that this is likely... or maybe you would've been invaded by the japanese in the 40's

" You can not invade the mainland United States . There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass . " Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto [ Japanese Navy WWII]

 

[Conservative Christian]

Google "John Lott" or "Gary Kleck".

That should give you plenty of intellectual ammo to use against gun control geeks.

 

[TruckinMike]

I disagree with his entire presumption that guns have not slowed the progression of our tyrannical government.

If we didn't have guns, they would have screwed us a long time ago.

No question about it! Its the carrying of the "big stick" that has them cautious. --- If firearms served no purpose in preserving liberty - the gov wouldn't care about disarming the general public. But they do. That alone should answer the question.

TMike

 

[Carson]

You may not need one in a week or a month but when you do need one you need it mighty darn quick.

 

[mellamojuana]

I believe we are "done for" if we ever have to defend ourselves with firearms against our government's shooting at us in our own homes, or wherever we have holed up to try to save our lives. Nonetheless, I believe that, where I live, only warning shots have prevented a home invasion, and marauding by non-gov't irresponsible trespassers.

I like Truckin's assertion that gov't is interested in our disarmament because it's to gov't's advantage for us to be defenseless as kittens. OK, so I added to it. See his statement above.

 

[50calray]

From that quote it seems that the belief is that if you have them what good are they doing you when the government is ramming things down our throats.

I would start off by saying that owning a firearm does not equate with violence. Owning a firearm is first and foremost for the prevention of violence.

On the personal side it allows you to protect yourself and others against those which would cause PHYSICAL harm to you.

Every gun owner that I know would rather not have to use their firearm. Using your firearm will mean that someone will die and is used as the LAST resort.

Obviously, the majority firearms owners still believe there can be a peaceful end to government encroachment.

This.

 

[Gideon]

An armed society is a polite society.

Gun owners are peacefully confident.

The more adept with the guns, the higher the level of confidence, and the higher the likelihood of peacefulness.

Only an avid gun owner can understand this "confident sense of peace."


An armed society is a polite society.

 

[Objectivist]

Can someone help me refute some of this?

The first thing I ask someone that is anti-gun is "When is the last time you've fired a weapon?" Most have never been to a range or been properly trained, those that I have trained enjoy the sport of target shooting/plinking to this day and most have purchased a weapon.

 

[jkm1864]

The only thing that is worth shooting anymore is .22LR and 5.45X39. I bought 1000 rounds of .308 during the primaries for 750 now its over 1000. I am not going to shoot cheap made russian ammo in a fine tuned american machine so shooting it is out of the question. I recently bought a .22LR and even though the ammo is dirt cheap the range fees are not. Every time I go to the range thats 50 bucks just for what thirty minutes to an hour worth of fun. I have stopped going to the range because A. The old lady makes it to where I can't afford it & B. I can think of other things to spend the money on such as silver. So just because someone doesn't go to the range often doesn't make them a gun newbie they just might not be able to in their current situation.

 

[Arklatex]

Because making guns illegal would get rid of them alright, just like weed.


Making them illegal would just take them out of the law abiding people's hands. Black market wants them illegal that's for sure.

 

[Semper Vigilans]

Gun owners are peacefully confident.

The more adept with the guns, the higher the level of confidence, and the higher the likelihood of peacefulness.

Only an avid gun owner can understand this "confident sense of peace."


An armed society is a polite society.

Took the words right out of my mouth Gideon.

<--- Avid gun owner.

 

[pacelli]

If everyone on a hijacked plane had a weapon, there would be no more successful hijackings.

 

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

The person voicing his opinion sounds like he's not sure what he's arguing against. At the end of his rant draws a couple "conclusions":

1. I think one is more likely to shoot a family member or something that an evil doers and people kill each other by the thousands without it protecting liberties one bit.

2. "[He or she is] in favor [of] local militias that are well armed

3. (and this one is way out of left field) something more than guns is required to keep the media from being a propaganda piece and keep the gov in check.

having these conclusions laid out and taking the arguments and his conclusions, one at a time, i would start by asking what his premises are that led him or her to these conclusions. I would be shocked if they could state very many premises, supporting the conclusion, that would create a VALID argument.

The rules of logic tells us that in order for an argument to be valid, the premises must not only be true statements, but also must directly support (although not prove per se) the conclusion.

IMHO, the best defense to people like this is learning how to ask the right questions. By asking the right questions you can force this person to clearly state what they are arguing, their conclusion drawn from the argument and the premises that led this person to his or her conclusion rather than having to listen to his or her emotional tirade trying to argue a point of view for which they have no support or evidence.

Do i think the media is a mouth-piece for government propaganda? Absolutely! but guns don't (and never will) keep the media in check... RATINGS do. So if he or she has a problem with the media, stop watching/listening/reading what they have put out. As ratings fall, advertisers will find other venues to showcase their products and services and that media company will go the way that many newspapers are currently.

As for his conclusion #1 - I wonder who put this idea in his head... i'd be willing to bet it comes from the same media he complains about.

Maybe the best thing to do with people who flaunt such irrationality is to smile and say, "I appreciate your opinion on guns, but it's a freedom i take seriously, much like your right to worship, assemble, speak, etc in the way you see fit. Lets make a deal, I'll wont try to take away any of your rights, and you don't try to take away mine."

This reminds me of something a friend from the south told me once... "I can't fix stupid Bo.."

 

[Dr.3D]

If everyone on a hijacked plane had a weapon, there would be no more successful hijackings.

Of course a lot of planes would probably crash if there were to be a hijacking.
Stray bullets can do a lot of serious damage in a pressurized cabin.

 

[torchbearer]

Of course a lot of planes would probably crash if there were to be a hijacking.
Stray bullets can do a lot of serious damage in a pressurized cabin.

depends on how many shots fired.
holes in the cabin are bad, but not as bad as getting highjacked by Habib.

 

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

depends on how many shots fired.
holes in the cabin are bad, but not as bad as getting highjacked by Habib.

I don't know very much on how bad a single bullet hole would be, but i'm sure there is better ammo than full metal jacket that the air marshals use on a plane. In fact, i believe they use hollow points (or some variation) to help prevent the bullet from going through its target.

 

[Expatriate]

Guns on planes aren't as dangerous as most think

//