UPDATED! Going to be a panelist at a "Gun Control Forum" tomorrow night
- Thread starter WC145
- Start date
One more article.
Cramer: Racist Roots of Gun Control (1995)
As described in that article, the origins of gun control have extensive roots in institutional racism.
In addition to the above, a good point to make is that "gun control" as has been proposed is at its heart classist, and sexist. Those elected proponents all seem to have armed security. And a 100 lb. woman will only have parity with a large male attacker if she is armed. Those that would ban firearms are advocating a monopoly on the use of force by the State, or criminal classes; in effect supporting a society where the weak are at the mercy of the strong.
Cramer: Racist Roots of Gun Control (1995)
As described in that article, the origins of gun control have extensive roots in institutional racism.
In addition to the above, a good point to make is that "gun control" as has been proposed is at its heart classist, and sexist. Those elected proponents all seem to have armed security. And a 100 lb. woman will only have parity with a large male attacker if she is armed. Those that would ban firearms are advocating a monopoly on the use of force by the State, or criminal classes; in effect supporting a society where the weak are at the mercy of the strong.
Thank you all so much for your thoughts and ideas, fantastic stuff.
bitstream- I have to comment on your post because the Sheriff, like the President, used the "If it saves just one life" line in one of the newspaper interviews and I've been having a hard time coming up with a counter. This is perfect and so simple, sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees.
COL Jagdog
Member
the truth is that most folks have not read anything about the original intent of the 2nd Amendment -- it's real and actual purpose was to allow citizens to have weapons commensurate with what the weapons of the government were -- it was not written to cover hunting or self-defense -- the redactors of the 2nd Amendment were not concerned with protecting a recreational activity (hunting) as some of the moronic liberals would have citizens believe -- it was to give a balance against a government run amok.
quote to them the words of US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (appointed to the USSC by President James Madison, one of the individuals who wrote the Constitution), who in his Commentaries
(widely considered the best analysis of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) wrote essentially that the 2nd Amendment was designed to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms of the type "necessary to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic" , as a guarantee against disorder and tyranny -- i.e. the type of weapons necessary to defend the country and the Constitution (not limited to weapons for hunting or self-defense). The liberals try to fallaciously argue that the 2nd Amendment contemplated hunting and self-defense, which is patently false -- the whole point of the "militia clause" is that we are considered "militia" and should ahve acess to weapons necessaary to defend the country from enemies, foreign and domestic. This doesn't mean handguns and shotguns.
As Story wrote:
"The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections and domestic usurpations of power by rulers". (my note: certainly applies to our current national situation potentially) ..... "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful (in usurping power) in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
The meaning and interpretation by Justice Story cannot be more clear --
the people can possess arms necessary to defend against domestic and foreign threats.
By the way, our Department of Homeland Security, in it's recent bid/order to buy 7000 AR-15 rifles with thousands of 30-round magazines (as specified in the bid) --
termed these weapons "personal defense weapons" -- if they can have personal defense weapons, certainly the citizens, male and female can own similar personal defense weapons per the 2nd Amendment.
The Heller case (US Supreme Court case) furthur strengthened the premise that the 2nd Amendment "shall not be infringed" langauge means exactly that.
It the anti-gunners can ignore this right, inalienable under the Bill of Rights, they can just ignore all of the other rights as well.
Also, argue the importance ot the 2nd Amendment -- the 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech and press, arguably the most important right under the Bill of Rights, there is a reason the 2nd most important right under the Bill of Rights is the right to keep and bear arms (i.e. there is a reason they made it #2) -- keeping and bearing arms is fundamental to keeping the 1st Amendment extant and in play
no ability to keep and bear arms -- no ability to protect the 1st Amendment.
Hope this helps.
quote to them the words of US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (appointed to the USSC by President James Madison, one of the individuals who wrote the Constitution), who in his Commentaries
(widely considered the best analysis of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) wrote essentially that the 2nd Amendment was designed to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms of the type "necessary to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic" , as a guarantee against disorder and tyranny -- i.e. the type of weapons necessary to defend the country and the Constitution (not limited to weapons for hunting or self-defense). The liberals try to fallaciously argue that the 2nd Amendment contemplated hunting and self-defense, which is patently false -- the whole point of the "militia clause" is that we are considered "militia" and should ahve acess to weapons necessaary to defend the country from enemies, foreign and domestic. This doesn't mean handguns and shotguns.
As Story wrote:
"The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections and domestic usurpations of power by rulers". (my note: certainly applies to our current national situation potentially) ..... "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful (in usurping power) in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
The meaning and interpretation by Justice Story cannot be more clear --
the people can possess arms necessary to defend against domestic and foreign threats.
By the way, our Department of Homeland Security, in it's recent bid/order to buy 7000 AR-15 rifles with thousands of 30-round magazines (as specified in the bid) --
termed these weapons "personal defense weapons" -- if they can have personal defense weapons, certainly the citizens, male and female can own similar personal defense weapons per the 2nd Amendment.
The Heller case (US Supreme Court case) furthur strengthened the premise that the 2nd Amendment "shall not be infringed" langauge means exactly that.
It the anti-gunners can ignore this right, inalienable under the Bill of Rights, they can just ignore all of the other rights as well.
Also, argue the importance ot the 2nd Amendment -- the 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech and press, arguably the most important right under the Bill of Rights, there is a reason the 2nd most important right under the Bill of Rights is the right to keep and bear arms (i.e. there is a reason they made it #2) -- keeping and bearing arms is fundamental to keeping the 1st Amendment extant and in play
no ability to keep and bear arms -- no ability to protect the 1st Amendment.
Hope this helps.
COL Jagdog
Member
Falls and drowning and cellphone-misuse (i.e. car wrecks) cause something on the order of 20,000; 4500 and 6500 deaths annually --
Ban gravity, ladders, water, lakes, oceans, rivers, cars and cell phones.
Ban gravity, ladders, water, lakes, oceans, rivers, cars and cell phones.
USAF385
US Veteran
There has been a lot of good suggestions. I admit I haven't read them all so I apologize if I'm repeating.
The "if it saves just one life, we should restrict / ban guns" line has been coming up a lot. I like to use the suggestion we shoul then ban smoking or drinking because that would save thousands and thousands of lives yearly.
Oh.. a good one liner is "does the first amendment apply only to pen quills?"
Good luck tomorrow. I can't wait to hear how it goes.
The "if it saves just one life, we should restrict / ban guns" line has been coming up a lot. I like to use the suggestion we shoul then ban smoking or drinking because that would save thousands and thousands of lives yearly.
Oh.. a good one liner is "does the first amendment apply only to pen quills?"
Good luck tomorrow. I can't wait to hear how it goes.
Col. Plink
Member
On the "why do you need 30 rounds? question -- ask why Quentin Tarantino (or Hollywood) needs to make horribly violent movies, or why Detroit makes fast cars like Corvettes that go over 100 MPH, when the limit is 75 at most?
It can help strip the "need" out of the argument, and hopefully makes "want" sink in. OK, I realize we are talking rights, not wants, but it might help if you get pestered and need a simple analogy.
Lots of good advice above, and especially remember to "just be you". Speak from the heart.
It can help strip the "need" out of the argument, and hopefully makes "want" sink in. OK, I realize we are talking rights, not wants, but it might help if you get pestered and need a simple analogy.
Lots of good advice above, and especially remember to "just be you". Speak from the heart.
jwk
Member
The right to bear arms is just that. It is a right, not a want or a need. You have a right to own an AR15.
The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting. It is about the citizens' ability to protect themselves and the country if needed. This is the answer to the comment about not needing a 30 round magazine to go deer hunting.
I like the analogy of the right to bear arms to freedom of speech. If the founders couldn't foresee an AR15 so that they couldn't have meant that we should have the right to own one, I'm sure that they couldn't have envisioned TV, Radio, Internet, etc. Why should free speech be not held to face to face communications and the printed words but firearms held to muzzleloaders?
I like what a prior poster said about making them define an assault weapon if they use that term. Once they define it, pick it apart. Point out the fallacies of the definition.
Ask how many of them think that a 223 / 5.56 is a powerful weapon like they have been lead to believe. Then explain a deer rifle cartridge such as a 30-06 to them. Point out that folks use a .223 for things like hunting prairie dogs and that it is illegal for deer hunting in most states because it isn't powerful enough. One of the points you are trying to make is that the gun control folks are flat out willing to lie in the public debate.
Ask them to clearly state where any statistics that they cite come from. Ask the audience to check those cites when they get home to see if the anti-gun folks are really telling the truth.
If someone brings up cop killer bullets, point out to them that any rifle cartridge used for hunting will punch a vest. Vests of the type worn by police officers are only designed for stopping handgun rounds, not rifle rounds.
Also point out how quickly a magazine can be changed so it really doesn't matter if you are dealing with a 10 shot v a 30 shot magazine. Point out that a basically trained shooter can change a magazine in 1-2 seconds. Then turn around and ask the Sheriff to demonstrate a magazine change on his service weapon. It will either demonstrate your point or make him look like a poor gun handler if he does. If he isn't willing to demonstrate how a magazine change works, you might make the point that he just doesn't want folks to see what you are talking about. That's a stunt and you need to think your way through it if you decide to pull it.
Ask the anti-gun sheriff if he and his department have a legal obligation or duty to protect citizens from harm (they don't by law). If he claims that they do, ask him if he agrees that if the department fails to meet that duty whether the department should have to pay damages for injuries suffered by crime victims when his department has failed to protect someone. He'll say no to that. Now Sheriff, if you don't have a duty to protect that lady sitting in the front row (pick a little one) when a 250 lb man tries to break down her door and sexually assault her, don't you think that she should have a firearm so that she can protect herself?
Ask the sheriff what firearms his officers carry on their persons and in their patrol cars. Ask him why those particular weapons were chosen. If there is an "assault weapon" in the mix, ask him why his officers need that type weapon if you as a citizen shouldn't have the right to own the same type weapon to defend your family.
Ask the sheriff if his service handgun has ever jumped out of its holster on its own volition and starting shooting at people? When he says no, ask him why he thinks any particular firearm is a problem rather than the person pulling the trigger being the problem.
Lots of good ideas mentioned by various folks.
Thank you for going into the lion's den for all of us. Good luck.
Jim Keene
The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting. It is about the citizens' ability to protect themselves and the country if needed. This is the answer to the comment about not needing a 30 round magazine to go deer hunting.
I like the analogy of the right to bear arms to freedom of speech. If the founders couldn't foresee an AR15 so that they couldn't have meant that we should have the right to own one, I'm sure that they couldn't have envisioned TV, Radio, Internet, etc. Why should free speech be not held to face to face communications and the printed words but firearms held to muzzleloaders?
I like what a prior poster said about making them define an assault weapon if they use that term. Once they define it, pick it apart. Point out the fallacies of the definition.
Ask how many of them think that a 223 / 5.56 is a powerful weapon like they have been lead to believe. Then explain a deer rifle cartridge such as a 30-06 to them. Point out that folks use a .223 for things like hunting prairie dogs and that it is illegal for deer hunting in most states because it isn't powerful enough. One of the points you are trying to make is that the gun control folks are flat out willing to lie in the public debate.
Ask them to clearly state where any statistics that they cite come from. Ask the audience to check those cites when they get home to see if the anti-gun folks are really telling the truth.
If someone brings up cop killer bullets, point out to them that any rifle cartridge used for hunting will punch a vest. Vests of the type worn by police officers are only designed for stopping handgun rounds, not rifle rounds.
Also point out how quickly a magazine can be changed so it really doesn't matter if you are dealing with a 10 shot v a 30 shot magazine. Point out that a basically trained shooter can change a magazine in 1-2 seconds. Then turn around and ask the Sheriff to demonstrate a magazine change on his service weapon. It will either demonstrate your point or make him look like a poor gun handler if he does. If he isn't willing to demonstrate how a magazine change works, you might make the point that he just doesn't want folks to see what you are talking about. That's a stunt and you need to think your way through it if you decide to pull it.
Ask the anti-gun sheriff if he and his department have a legal obligation or duty to protect citizens from harm (they don't by law). If he claims that they do, ask him if he agrees that if the department fails to meet that duty whether the department should have to pay damages for injuries suffered by crime victims when his department has failed to protect someone. He'll say no to that. Now Sheriff, if you don't have a duty to protect that lady sitting in the front row (pick a little one) when a 250 lb man tries to break down her door and sexually assault her, don't you think that she should have a firearm so that she can protect herself?
Ask the sheriff what firearms his officers carry on their persons and in their patrol cars. Ask him why those particular weapons were chosen. If there is an "assault weapon" in the mix, ask him why his officers need that type weapon if you as a citizen shouldn't have the right to own the same type weapon to defend your family.
Ask the sheriff if his service handgun has ever jumped out of its holster on its own volition and starting shooting at people? When he says no, ask him why he thinks any particular firearm is a problem rather than the person pulling the trigger being the problem.
Lots of good ideas mentioned by various folks.
Thank you for going into the lion's den for all of us. Good luck.
Jim Keene
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
So much to bring up
How about you bring the relation to the "drug war" that began in the 80's and how the federal government has been working for over three decades to eliminate controlled substances from the united states, yet anyone could walk down the street and buy marijuana or any other drug. If they were to do the same with firearms it would be the same. Law abiding citizens don't possess any of it yet it's easier than ever for any criminal or casual user to obtain it. So the federal government spends billions of dollars to dispose of these "controlled substances" yet they can barely graze the majority of it from reaching our borders. All they do when they do this is support the cartel conglomerates south of the border by eliminating all competition so these criminals can kidnap tourists and kill their own countrymen when they fail to comply (carry their drugs across the border). Not only this but this bullsh*t AWB is and attempt to ban the least statistically used platform of firearm to commit violence...
I work for DHS and I'm more than aware of this rediculous waste of money and time.
God bless America
How about you bring the relation to the "drug war" that began in the 80's and how the federal government has been working for over three decades to eliminate controlled substances from the united states, yet anyone could walk down the street and buy marijuana or any other drug. If they were to do the same with firearms it would be the same. Law abiding citizens don't possess any of it yet it's easier than ever for any criminal or casual user to obtain it. So the federal government spends billions of dollars to dispose of these "controlled substances" yet they can barely graze the majority of it from reaching our borders. All they do when they do this is support the cartel conglomerates south of the border by eliminating all competition so these criminals can kidnap tourists and kill their own countrymen when they fail to comply (carry their drugs across the border). Not only this but this bullsh*t AWB is and attempt to ban the least statistically used platform of firearm to commit violence...
I work for DHS and I'm more than aware of this rediculous waste of money and time.
God bless America
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
just another thought
If a god awful greater amount of people are killed every year by drunk driving then why not ban alcohol? Oh well we saw how well that worked in the 30's... It dosen't prevent anything just lets criminals profit off of ridiculous federal bans such as the AWB. We study history in school because history repeats itself, this is why the 2nd amendment was put in place by our founding fathers. Because events like the Revolutionary war, Holocaust, and the commissioning of groups like the KGB who murdered thousands of innocent russians under Stalin's rule are always possible, even if not now may be 50-100 years from now... And if someone says we don't need a 30 round magazine to defend his family or property, tell that to the man during the LA riots standing on the roof of his business surrounded by tens of rioter's and looter's.
If a god awful greater amount of people are killed every year by drunk driving then why not ban alcohol? Oh well we saw how well that worked in the 30's... It dosen't prevent anything just lets criminals profit off of ridiculous federal bans such as the AWB. We study history in school because history repeats itself, this is why the 2nd amendment was put in place by our founding fathers. Because events like the Revolutionary war, Holocaust, and the commissioning of groups like the KGB who murdered thousands of innocent russians under Stalin's rule are always possible, even if not now may be 50-100 years from now... And if someone says we don't need a 30 round magazine to defend his family or property, tell that to the man during the LA riots standing on the roof of his business surrounded by tens of rioter's and looter's.
RaceBannon
Member
No advice from me, but thank you for doing this. Thanks for standing up for us. You're going into a hostile situation and this is a gutsy thing to do.
YogiBear
Absent Comrade
Aloha,
Here are some points:
Gun control is a Dead item. The First Amemdment protect free speech.
3D primting today can make plastic 30 round magazines.
Gunsmiths 3D-Print High Capacity Ammo Clips To Thwart Proposed Gun Laws - Forbes
Metal 3D printing can make guns. The plans are on the internet. FREE
3D metal printing - YouTube
England is the Most Violent of all european nations
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online
By purchasing guns, the people have spoken as in the First Amendment
Columnist Argues
Video on How to act and crush gun banners
[Video] Anti Gun News Anchor Gets Schooled in Debate With WV Citizens Defense League President
That guy is very good in defense of guns. He did it to Piers Morgan too.
Stay calm and stay focused. Do Not get sidetracked.
Let the other side loose emotional control.
Smile, always Smile, it will drive them Nuts.
Best Wishes.
Here are some points:
Gun control is a Dead item. The First Amemdment protect free speech.
3D primting today can make plastic 30 round magazines.
Gunsmiths 3D-Print High Capacity Ammo Clips To Thwart Proposed Gun Laws - Forbes
Metal 3D printing can make guns. The plans are on the internet. FREE
3D metal printing - YouTube
England is the Most Violent of all european nations
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online
By purchasing guns, the people have spoken as in the First Amendment
Columnist Argues
Video on How to act and crush gun banners
[Video] Anti Gun News Anchor Gets Schooled in Debate With WV Citizens Defense League President
That guy is very good in defense of guns. He did it to Piers Morgan too.
Stay calm and stay focused. Do Not get sidetracked.
Let the other side loose emotional control.
Smile, always Smile, it will drive them Nuts.
Best Wishes.
bitstream
Member
Thanks. They will likely reply with something like "but guns are designed to only kill people" (or something else). You need to immediately reply with "no, that's not what your emotional appeal argument was, you said that, if doing some thing would only save one life, then that thing is worth doing. That means you believe we have a moral obligation to do anything that might save one life, thus we have no choice but to purse that. That means banning pretty much everything in your life because nearly everything can and does cause deaths at one time or another.
Another thing: I don't know if you'll get this in time, but go to the forum with a visual aid. Get a large poster board and see if you can get it printed professional (Kinkos I think can print out a MS Word file onto a large board). At the top, in all caps, type "The Bill of Rights". Underneath, number 1-10 and write the full, original text of each of the 10 amendments. Put that up conspicuously at the podium. During the entire forum, every time somebody makes an argument about the 2nd, show them how that exact argument can be used to abridge another of the 10 Rights. Make sure they realize that diminishing any Right, diminishes them all. Make sure they See all 10 Rights and understand what they are doing.
Dominus_Lex
Member
Keep you cool, and do not be afraid to give up a point or two if you feel something being said is reasonable. Most of all remember none of our constitutional rights are absolute. As an example we do limit speech, in fact it can be criminal (for example I can hit you with a stick and it's a crime, but if I call you a "dumb whatever" when I hit you, the speech makes this a "hate crime) From my view the major issue is the majority of groups out there to protect the Bill of Rights wish the 2nd Am. was not around and do there best to ignore it. That forces the rest of us to do the hard lifting. Keep in mind most folks would say I liberal when it comes to the subject, but the fact is the 2nd Am. can be limited, however even with that admission, I expect the same through review of any law to limit it that the other sections of the Bill of Rights are given. In the end that is not taking place here, just think about the firestorm caused if the St. of NY. took action to limit search and seizure protections as quickly as they limited the 2nd Am.
Old TexMex
Member
Not to beat a dead horse, but the 3rd Amendment is the right to defend our very home and family against an abuse of authority. Need a gun to do that. There used to be a crime on the books called "official oppression" (texas penal code 39.03)
No, wait it's still there! What do you know about that....
No, wait it's still there! What do you know about that....
Old TexMex
Member
Thread drift:
Sorry to break it to you, but only 14 states are still covered under the 4th Amendment. Google "homeland security computer seizure"
We now return to the right to keep and bear arms, and why we do.
HAWKEYE10
Member
I think you should bring up the fact that there are many laws that try to reduce the use of illegal drugs. We all know this doesn't work so why would more gun laws work? If you make something illegal they will just smuggle it in from south of our border. Don
Probably too late to add but point out that many of the features listed that determine an "assault" weapon are exactly those that are great for smaller women shooters, things like collapsable and adjustable stocks, pistol grips and so on are perfect for those of us who need that flexibility to safely fire a gun.
hazmattech
Member
Everyone here has great points! When I am asked about it I simply state... The 2nd amendment was put into place to keep our governing leaders honest and in check. Without it, where will we be in 1, 5 or 10 years? You think we have corruption now? It could get real ugly...
Semi Auto and HC mags? Look what a guy with a bolt action did in Dallas from a library window. Its not the gun (pistol or long gun) used, its the the person behind it.
Good luck and let us know how it goes!
Semi Auto and HC mags? Look what a guy with a bolt action did in Dallas from a library window. Its not the gun (pistol or long gun) used, its the the person behind it.
Good luck and let us know how it goes!
MH8675309
Member
If a god awful greater amount of people are killed every year by drunk driving then why not ban alcohol? Oh well we saw how well that worked in the 30's... It dosen't prevent anything just lets criminals profit off of ridiculous federal bans such as the AWB
Back in the thirties there were allot more "criminals" because of the change in the law. If there are laws passed for greater gun controll I suspect that many many people who are upstanding folks will be considered criminal. That is inconceivable that a law change would make so many people "criminal" because of their belief in the 2nd amendment. It is also inconceivable that some of our government officials continue to try to re-in-terpret diferent areas of the constitution with us footing the bill.
Back in the thirties there were allot more "criminals" because of the change in the law. If there are laws passed for greater gun controll I suspect that many many people who are upstanding folks will be considered criminal. That is inconceivable that a law change would make so many people "criminal" because of their belief in the 2nd amendment. It is also inconceivable that some of our government officials continue to try to re-in-terpret diferent areas of the constitution with us footing the bill.
Similar threads
- Locked
