Are we making a rational argument?

[LOKNLOD]

I think we're on the right track here. These discussions are how the debate must be reframed in order for us to maintain our rights. If we can't win the culture, we're just playing defense against siege tactics. There is no victory in defense. They sit outside our gates, waiting for a sign of weakness to attack, and will keep trying, over and over, until they win. If they don't get us this time, sooner or later something similar will happen, and then it will be our rights on the chopping block again. "This wouldn't have happened if only you had listened to us last time!" (A seductive argument, because it's nigh impossible to disprove a timeline in an alternate universe, ya know?). We've done a good job in lobbing rocks from our trebuchets and knocking down their siege ladders in recent years. We've expanded our walls on many fronts. But now they've got a fresh resupply and are on the attack again. We've got to cut off their supply lines, and the only way to do that is to win the culture back to our side in a way that their army dwindles because it has no new recruits.

Time we spend arguing about the technical aspects of guns themselves is just a distraction while they wait for the orc with the gunpowder to show up and run into our sewer pipe...

[NickA]

After 9/11, there was still an enemy, in another country, on which we could focus our anger, wrath, and resources. The source of evil didn't perish with its victims.

After a mass shooting, with the sole perpetrator dead, there is no constructive outlet for the emotion. There's no one left that can be held accountable. There's no one left to punish, there's no revenge to be had, there's no retribution. But with so much emotion tied up in it, especially with kids involved, that, in the immediate aftermath, "something must be done!" The anti-gun folks (who are anti-gun even if I could prove guns cured ED and cancer and cause fat loss and perky boobs) are just waiting for their chance to use the momentum for their purposes.



Bingo. This is the underlying struggle across all issues right now. "They" see a problem - any problem - and say, "Somebody should do something!" by which of course they mean the government should do something. "We" see a problem and say "How I can be prepared to deal with that problem?" That's why part of the country is calling for bans on pillows with square corners out of fear someone might poke an eye, and another part is running out and stocking up on guns and ammo in an panic and calling for teachers to carry guns. That is the philosophical argument we must win. It's not about guns or gun control, it's about accountability, responsibility, and the understanding that the freedoms we have long enjoyed in America are not freedom from anything -- except tyranny -- but rather a freedom to be solely responsible for ourselves, to be accountable for our actions, and for the actions of other individuals to never used as the anvil on which the chains of slavery are forged and thrust upon us under the guise of making us safer. Freedom is dangerous, dammit, and once safety is elevated to a status that makes it worth any price, freedom will be tossed aside as a burden. And it is a weight to be borne, but it's a weight that makes us better and stronger. It ain't heavy, it's my freedom.

Q.F.T. Very well stated.
Especially the bit about how people view solving problems. It's such a fundamental difference in attitude I don't know how we bridge the gap, but we have to try.

[TGS]

I keep seeing pro-gun people confuse the two terms, which only serves to help the anti-RKBA movement. So, for the love of god:

"Assault rifle" is a legitimate term, and is real. The term is an interpretation of the German "sturmgewehr," applied to the Stg44, the first successful assault rifle and in a distinctly separate class of firearm than a carbine or rifle. If you are saying, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle," you're an f'ing moron. Intermediate caliber, large capacity magazine, select fire....this is an assault rifle.

An "assault weapon" is the term that is manufactured by the Brady Campaign to attach an "assault rifle" connotation to anything scary looking, as they would be incorrect in calling a semi-auto AR15 an assault rifle and they know it.

Point these differences out to people so they understand. Knowing is half the battle.

[BaiHu]

Dangit! Ya musta edited it and put the GI Joe thing in after I read it ;(

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[Bigguy]

I keep seeing pro-gun people confuse the two terms, which only serves to help the anti-RKBA movement. So, for the love of god:

"Assault rifle" is a legitimate term, and is real. The term is an interpretation of the German "sturmgewehr," applied to the Stg44, the first successful assault rifle and in a distinctly separate class of firearm than a carbine or rifle. If you are saying, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle," you're an f'ing moron. Intermediate caliber, large capacity magazine, select fire....this is an assault rifle.

An "assault weapon" is the term that is manufactured by the Brady Campaign to attach an "assault rifle" connotation to anything scary looking, as they would be incorrect in calling a semi-auto AR15 an assault rifle and they know it.

Point these differences out to people so they understand. Knowing is half the battle.

OK, I hate to break the news to you, but you're wrong. They're all called "weapons of mass destruction!"
I was unaware of this myself until I happened to catch a clip of Whoopi Goldberg on "The View."
Hope this clears things up.

Edit: I don't watch The View, I just saw a clip of it on FOX.

[Kyle Reese]

OK, I hate to break the news to you, but you're wrong. They're all called "weapons of mass destruction!"
I was unaware of this myself until I happened to catch a clip of Whoopi Goldberg on "The View."
Hope this clears things up.

Edit: I don't watch The View, I just saw a clip of it on FOX.

WMD's? I thought those were an invention of the Neo Cons and Bush?!!!!!

[Le Français]

OK, I hate to break the news to you, but you're wrong. They're all called "weapons of mass destruction!"
I was unaware of this myself until I happened to catch a clip of Whoopi Goldberg on "The View."
Hope this clears things up.

Edit: I don't watch The View, I just saw a clip of it on FOX.

And Whoopi is (or at least has claimed to be) an NRA member...

[Bigguy]

http://www.texarkanagazette.com/Bike.../worlds-apart/

Rights are not granted by the government, but by the creator. It is incumbent on government to demonstrate an urgent and compelling need to restrict or regulate. Government is an extension of collective individuals and derives it power, and indeed it’s very existence from them.
The very question, “why should you be allowed ….” belies this belief. The question assumes the individuals requirement to demonstrate a “need” to exercise a right, that must then be approved by the government. It’s a moral system in which the citizen is an extension of the government and derives his rights by governmental decree. It’s easy to understand in this system that even an individual’s personal safety is the purview of the government. Gun bans make sense in this system. Unless the citizen demonstrates to the government a compelling reason, they must rely on the authorities for protection. Self protection in this system means hiding and calling the authorities for help.

[John Ralston]

I have not read the 6 pages of this thread, but I have given this lots of thought. It is hard to sway a gun grabber, as logic isn't part of their thought process. These people throw a shit fit when you try to deny a young lady's freedom of speech/expression on a stripper pole or a web cam, yet they want to abolish the 2nd Amendment. They are fine giving up personal freedoms for some sense of security, no matter how thinly veiled. They actually believe that when something bad is happening that the entire police force will show up in 10 seconds when they dial 911.

What we need to clearly explain to these people is that no law, not one single law, has every PREVENTED a crime. If they did, the prisons would be empty.

Laws are made in order to give Law Enforcement and Prosecutors an avenue for incarceration. What does a cop do when they show up to a call and no laws have been broken? They tell the person reporting the incident that there is nothing they can do..."they haven't done anything against the law"...no matter how F'ed up what they are doing is. If it isn't against the law, there is nothing they can do. What does a prosecutor do when there isn't something to charge someone with? They let them go.

What happens when criminals find a new way to screw the public? Congress enacts new legislation to make it illegal. Do they do this to prevent it from happening? Nope...they do it so that Law Enforcement will have something to charge them with. Laws DO NOT prevent crime and awful things from happening...they just make it so we can throw the bastards in prison (after the fact).

[Kyle Reese]

Ideologically driven gun banners aren't concerned with facts. They're simply interested in using the atrocity in CT to further their end game of removing all firearms in civilian hands. They'll go for _______ today, and claim to support "hunting and sporting guns". Legitimate facts, data and honest/open debates on the topic aren't on their agenda.