Through arguing with these people

[trbii]

My sister asked about my take on the proposed AWB law being enacted again. After I recalled the 1994-2004 era not being effective against violent crimes and shooting attacks by mental cases,I brought up the reality of all the existing legally owned hi-cap mags, carbines and rifles. It only bans sales of NEW weapons and makes prices on existing weapons and mags skyrocket. A sellers market. Artificially limited supply, high demand. After recounting the fact that most of these attackers commit suicide as soon as they hear police sirens or see someone armed drawing down on them, she seemed to begin to get more of a clue about who is responsible, who and what is the real culprit. The doer and his enablers, not the inanimate tool. Then her closing remark about personal protection was that when her husband and daughter were away overnight, the first thing she does is get the .38 snubbie I gave her for her birthday, load it and keep it nearby.

 

[coffeecup]

Totally Agree with farmerbyron's comment - "So sick of the "Founders didn't envision assault rifles", "Don't need 30 rounds to hunt" -

Our Founders didn't envision the level or corruptness that we are experiencing from our leadership as well. Hardly a day goes by in which a new story of federal corruption doesn't emerge.

Great Thread..

 

[Glocktogo]

Totally Agree with farmerbyron's comment - "So sick of the "Founders didn't envision assault rifles", "Don't need 30 rounds to hunt" -

Our Founders didn't envision the level or corruptness that we are experiencing from our leadership as well. Hardly a day goes by in which a new story of federal corruption doesn't emerge.

Great Thread..

Oh they knew of corruption alright. Why do you think we have the 2nd Amendment?

 

[farmerbyron]

I just point blank ask people if they know what the purpose of the 2nd Ammendment to the Contitution of the United States is and what it's purpose is. Many know that it deals with the right to own firearms. Pretty much nobody knows it real purpose. I tell them the 2nd Ammendment was put into place so citizens of the United States of America could protect themselves from tyranny from their own governement. The 2nd Ammendment was NOT put into place for home self defense and for hunting. It was put into place to protect "we the people" from an out of control governement. I then tell them if they feel that is wrong, they need to change the Constitution of the United States. Until them.............. quit talking out your a$$ and get a clue what you're talking about.

Works great !

Unfortunately, most of these people have no reverence for the constitution or its founders. They despise references to quotes of the founding fathers giving insight into the intent behind what they created.

Stupid people are easy to debate with. It's the know it all's that already have their mind made up that the founders we just typical politicians that have nothing of value to offer. They think it's wonderful how the constitution can change over time all the while ignoring the amendment process that is required to change the constitution.

 

[farmerbyron]

Oh they knew of corruption alright. Why do you think we have the 2nd Amendment?

Like!!!

 

[Gideon]

But people that don't understand gun rights "need" for you to have a valid reason to own them. Just brushing them aside won't change their mind or influence them to our side.

Like it our not, we need to show these people legitimate uses for the AR15. Show them them good aspects of them. Give examples, make it real to them that they can see how they might one day have a need for them.

See, that's the problem. We have no need to justify the existence of universal and eternal rights.

Most people are afraid of free men. The LEGITIMATE use of the AR15 is to kill members of a tyrannical government. That's why that right exists. I will not tiptoe through the tulips with people who are afraid of that concept.

YES, firearms are dangerous. YES, my rifle was designed to kill people. YES, I only really need 30 round magazines to increase the ease with which my rifle harms human beings...
...and not a single one of those points detracts from the fact that I will always have the right to possess and carry any firearm that has ever existed.

 

[bigbang]

See, that's the problem. We have no need to justify the existence of universal and eternal rights.

Most people are afraid of free men. The LEGITIMATE use of the AR15 is to kill members of a tyrannical government. That's why that right exists. I will not tiptoe through the tulips with people who are afraid of that concept.

YES, firearms are dangerous. YES, my rifle was designed to kill people. YES, I only really need 30 round magazines to increase the ease with which my rifle harms human beings...
...and not a single one of those points detracts from the fact that I will always have the right to possess and carry any firearm that has ever existed.

You could say that about every firearm. There also are other uses. That is not the way I will defend my rights to have guns by saying the only reason I have them is to kill people with them. I bought mine with other intentions.

 

[farmerbyron]

See, that's the problem. We have no need to justify the existence of universal and eternal rights.

Most people are afraid of free men. The LEGITIMATE use of the AR15 is to kill members of a tyrannical government. That's why that right exists. I will not tiptoe through the tulips with people who are afraid of that concept.

YES, firearms are dangerous. YES, my rifle was designed to kill people. YES, I only really need 30 round magazines to increase the ease with which my rifle harms human beings...
...and not a single one of those points detracts from the fact that I will always have the right to possess and carry any firearm that has ever existed.

While that may be ideologically true, using that defense will surely get those rights taken away. We live in a namby pamby, emotional, feel good world that has no understanding of constitutional rights.

 

[Gideon]

While that may be ideologically true, using that defense will surely get those rights taken away. We live in a namby pamby, emotional, feel good world that has no understanding of constitutional rights.

My point is more that we shouldn't have to defend something that is a right. You don't have to give a good reason why you can freely express yourself, the fact that it is a human right is enough. These people legitimate their arguments by convincing you to debate them. Their beliefs are irrelevant in the face of Constitutional rights, but the more you refuse to marginalize these people as the backward and selfish people that they are, the more bold they will become.

The people who think it is possible to take away rights (which is contra to the definition of a right), are going to think that way regardless. Without the understanding that "rights" are simply the natural state of the human being we are doomed anyways.