I have subscribed to an anti gun forum, their thoughts here.

[erick619]

Is it bad that my blood boils when I read such stupidity from websites like this? It hurts me to know that there are people in this world that are too caught up in their fantasy land and never take their heads out of their donkey.

[philip964]

Poster on Redit gun control site needs help with his gun control argument for an up coming debate.

I was banned a year ago from the site for suggesting Mexico was a good example of successful gun control laws.

[LSUTiger]

Those in charge don't wan't us to have guns because it's harder to control us and have convinced those who are afraid of guns to simply to give up their rights and not want the rest of us to have them either.

That's why the anti gun/anti constitution argument is base on emotion and lies instead of logic, reason, facts and history.

They don't care that by infringing on law abiding citizens with various gun controls schemes and creating gun free zones that this leads only to more crime, while ignoring the fact that in places where there are more guns and people are allowed to exercise their 2A rights crime is reduced.

And when crime goes up, then the simply cry for more gun control. Gun control is so hideous and evil because it is a self perpetuating lie based on bad ideology, faulty logic, propaganda and lies at the real cost of Life, Freedom and Liberty.

[Charlies.Contingency]

Poster on Redit gun control site needs help with his gun control argument for an up coming debate.

I was banned a year ago from the site for suggesting Mexico was a good example of successful gun control laws.

Here is an argument from that link: (In red is my response to it now.)



Here are some common pro gun arguments and my rebuttals.

The 2nd amendment shall not be infringed

The entire constitution is subject to change. That is literally the entire point of the constitution.
If the entire constitution is subject to be changed, then why have a constitution if we can change it to something else? Since it is supposedly meant to be changed, then are it's statements irreverent? Such as our other rights? Can we just change those too? They just don't like the 2nd amendment.

We need guns to protect us against tyranny.

There is no reason to ever believe that the US will become a tyranny. We elect people into power. A tyrant would never make it into office, unless that is the will of the people. Also the government branches have checks and balances to make sure no branch becomes too powerful. So it is idiotic to think that the only thing stopping us from tyranny is private gun ownership. After all the government have access to an army which has you out gunned, trained, and organized.
So as long a we will something, it will not be so? I doubt that any of our democratic governments we have created would ever be taken into tyranny, since the people would have to will it, right? WRONG.

Second note, "After all, the government have access to an army which has you out gunned, trained, and organized." That says it for me. Essentially he is saying, the government has you out gunned already, so give up your only defense to the government, because you will lose. But by the way, the government wouldn't do anything like that anyway, so because they will, give up your guns.

Law abiding citizens shouldn't have to suffer because of criminals.

Yes they should. A lot of guns used in crimes comes from "law abiding citizens". Also just because you are law abiding doesn't mean you should be allowed to own a gun.
And a "Lot" of guns do not. If law abiding citizens "should" suffer according to you, then please be our example as to why and how we should suffer. You want to be protected by a gun, but have others carry the burden. You promote your so called "gun violence" by enforcing "gun control."

If all law abiding citizens turn in there guns then just the criminals will be armed, criminals don't follow laws anyways.

By this logic, why have laws at all. Also criminals gets guns because of the lax gun laws in this country and availability period. If less guns were in circulation then the prices of guns on the black market will sky rocket and the police will continue to confiscate guns. Eventually they will be weeded out. So short term pain, long term gain.
You contradict yourself. You admit that only the criminals would be armed, and for a period, all will suffer, but you hope that in the future there will be a gain. I'm certain countries like Australia will testify as to how well (Sarcasm) this concept is working.

I need guns to protect my family.

This is an appeal to emotion. Also there are far more efficient ways of safeguarding your home. Get an reinforced door and decorative window bars and no one is getting in your house.
So a reinforced door and window bars are the solution? That doesn't work to begin with, let alone that only covers being in a locked up secured home living in fear with criminals running rampant outside. Forbid having to go anywhere, because then you are just out of luck and subject to possible death, because that's just the cost of things. If that was all people needed to be safe, then why are people not currently safe? Your solution is already available, and not working.

The only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

Here is this argument destroyed by a tactical expert: http://www.thenation.com/article/combat ... r-fantasy/
From the article itself:

EDITOR'S NOTE: The original story identified a source as a combat veteran and former Navy SEAL. A records search has since revealed that he significantly exaggerated his military record. His comments have been removed from the article, and the headline has been changed. We apologize to our readers.

Being that he as already lied, deceived, and exaggerated, should this source really be acceptable to begin with? I think not. The article is filled with "I think" and the word think is used 8 times. They are talking solely about whom they consider untrained wahoos, and use their unrealistic opinion to say that personal self defense is unrealistic, PERIOD. Yet they refer to those with training, especially prior military and LEO's being able to protect themselves. So even though they admit that a LEO or service member can defend themselves appropriately, they maintain that guns are bad, and even those that CAN defend themselves according to their article, should be disarmed for the good of the people. If irrelevant contradictory information is the only way you can argue your lies, you've already been had. Typical Leftist garbage.

[jb2012]

These forums about gun control make my blood boil honestly. The left refuses to use any logic, and stick to their CNN statistics. I'm done.

[The Annoyed Man]

I can't read that tripe. This is the ONLY thing that will change their opinion:

1. To be trapped in a situation when seconds count and the police (who are NOT constitutionally obligated to protect them... see DeShaney v. Winnebago County, Warren v. District of Columbia and Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales) are minutes away;
2. in a situation in which a gun in their hand is the only thing that would save them;
3. to not have one available to them directly because of some crap legislation that they supported;
4. to make the cognitive connection between their previous legislative agenda and their current circumstances;
5. to despair at their own folly;
6. and to be rescued by a regular citizen 3rd party with a gun in hand.

Nothing else will work. Of course, it will require that a significant number of these foolish and feckless airheads die because there was no such 3rd party present and/or available (present ≠ available, since the 3rd party has free will in the matter) at the time to haul their stupid chestnuts out of the fire. But maybe if they either die or are rescued in about equal parts, the survivors will begin to change their minds. Or not. That kind of fecklessness tends to be irredeemable.

[John Galt]

I friend of mine often states that, liberalism is the philosophy of the terminally stupid.

[J.R.@A&M]

I seldom engage in talking with them about hypotheticals, either mine (crime risk, tyranny prevention), or theirs (wild west mayhem). My risk preferences are my business.

What I do find myself doing a lot is pointing them to the DPS stats showing that Texas CHLs are relatively more law abiding.

[MechAg94]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/0 ... t-work-out#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Third ND by a teacher at school so far this year. and as they correctly point out, its not even the Christmas break yet.

Okay, really this is two. The one they quoted was a "I am the only one professional enough" former FBI agent doing some sort of demonstration in an office next to a class. The quoted text indicated he wasn't even supposed to have the gun for whatever reason.

The 2nd was a teacher who had her gun go off in a bathroom and shot herself in the leg. The 3rd incident was a teach who had a pocket gun go off in his pocket during a class. It seems to me that neither of these two had a proper holster or were handling their gun when they really had no need to.

If we searched, we most likely could find similar shootings done by police officers or the general CHL holder population.

[philip964]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/0 ... t-work-out#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Third ND by a teacher at school so far this year. and as they correctly point out, its not even the Christmas break yet.

Okay, really this is two. The one they quoted was a "I am the only one professional enough" former FBI agent doing some sort of demonstration in an office next to a class. The quoted text indicated he wasn't even supposed to have the gun for whatever reason.

The 2nd was a teacher who had her gun go off in a bathroom and shot herself in the leg. The 3rd incident was a teach who had a pocket gun go off in his pocket during a class. It seems to me that neither of these two had a proper holster or were handling their gun when they really had no need to.

If we searched, we most likely could find similar shootings done by police officers or the general CHL holder population.

You forget they don't want us or the police to have guns either. Maybe soldiers are ok but only during an actual invasion of the US.

[Charlies.Contingency]

I can't read that tripe. This is the ONLY thing that will change their opinion:

1. To be trapped in a situation when seconds count and the police (who are NOT constitutionally obligated to protect them... see DeShaney v. Winnebago County, Warren v. District of Columbia and Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales) are minutes away;
2. in a situation in which a gun in their hand is the only thing that would save them;
3. to not have one available to them directly because of some crap legislation that they supported;
4. to make the cognitive connection between their previous legislative agenda and their current circumstances;
5. to despair at their own folly;
6. and to be rescued by a regular citizen 3rd party with a gun in hand.

Nothing else will work. Of course, it will require that a significant number of these foolish and feckless airheads die because there was no such 3rd party present and/or available (present ≠ available, since the 3rd party has free will in the matter) at the time to haul their stupid chestnuts out of the fire. But maybe if they either die or are rescued in about equal parts, the survivors will begin to change their minds. Or not. That kind of fecklessness tends to be irredeemable.

Yet if you were the one to save them TAM, and you made the attacker deceased, he/she might be mad at you for killing them. Better yet, they might sue you to pay for their mental therapy crap because they were traumatized by having to witness you killing somebody. Am I being pessimistic, or just realistic?

Maybe we should push a bill for if the person we saved is ungrateful, we can return them to the situation we saved them from.

[The Annoyed Man]

I can't read that tripe. This is the ONLY thing that will change their opinion:

1. To be trapped in a situation when seconds count and the police (who are NOT constitutionally obligated to protect them... see DeShaney v. Winnebago County, Warren v. District of Columbia and Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales) are minutes away;
2. in a situation in which a gun in their hand is the only thing that would save them;
3. to not have one available to them directly because of some crap legislation that they supported;
4. to make the cognitive connection between their previous legislative agenda and their current circumstances;
5. to despair at their own folly;
6. and to be rescued by a regular citizen 3rd party with a gun in hand.

Nothing else will work. Of course, it will require that a significant number of these foolish and feckless airheads die because there was no such 3rd party present and/or available (present ≠ available, since the 3rd party has free will in the matter) at the time to haul their stupid chestnuts out of the fire. But maybe if they either die or are rescued in about equal parts, the survivors will begin to change their minds. Or not. That kind of fecklessness tends to be irredeemable.

Yet if you were the one to save them TAM, and you made the attacker deceased, he/she might be mad at you for killing them. Better yet, they might sue you to pay for their mental therapy crap because they were traumatized by having to witness you killing somebody. Am I being pessimistic, or just realistic?

Maybe we should push a bill for if the person we saved is ungrateful, we can return them to the situation we saved them from.

Maybe we should just step up within hearing, but safely out of reach, and (while recording the video of it on our phones in the event of future litigation) ask the victim, "Excuse me, but I am carrying a firearm and will shoot the person attacking you with it if you want me to......but ONLY if you want me to. Please answer Yes or No. If you answer Yes, you agree to be 100% responsible for the consequences. What was that? You said No? Okay, have a nice day"

[KC5AV]

Also the government branches have checks and balances to make sure no branch becomes too powerful. So it is idiotic to think that the only thing stopping us from tyranny is private gun ownership.

Worcester v. Georgia 1832. The Supreme Court told President Andrew Jackson that he didn't have the right to remove the Cherokee from their tribal lands in Georgia. A famous quote attributed to Jackson at that time was, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Jackson simply ignored the ruling of the Supreme Court, and proceeded to remove the Cherokee. I'm sure that isn't the only time one branch has simply ignored those 'checks and balances'.

[Vol Texan]

Maybe we should just step up within hearing, but safely out of reach, and (while recording the video of it on our phones in the event of future litigation) ask the victim, "Excuse me, but I am carrying a firearm and will shoot the person attacking you with it if you want me to......but ONLY if you want me to. Please answer Yes or No. If you answer Yes, you agree to be 100% responsible for the consequences. What was that? You said No? Okay, have a nice day"

[philip964]

The anti gun redit forum is alive with comment on the latest terrorist attack in the US.

This person can solve all violence by placing all kinds of rules that gun owners must follow. These include psychological examinations every 3 months for all legal gun owners.

http://www.shootingtracker.com/

They go here so much that the site is overloaded.

I can't post on this gun control forum anymore I was banned for suggesting that Mexico would be a good comeback for an anti gunner to use in an argument on how effective gun control is.