I have been involved in promoting a 2A Sanctuary in my county. There is a meeting of a 5-member safety committee tonight, and then the idea goes to the entire board later. I have been asked to write a rebuttal letter to the local newspaper, where an anti-gun letter was printed. To make this letter as complete and powerful as possible, I am asking for input from Hide members, some of whom can be counted on to submit sage and thoughtful ideas on most issues. What are the most important points to be made? If there are other letters already written, I could use those as a starting point; will not plagarize. So, please, help me out if you can. Thx.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Pro 2A arguments
- Thread starter Dunraven
- Start date
Just point out the history of the twentieth century....second to disease government was the greatest killer of human beings.
You have to be careful with that argument.
Most people are afraid to accept the fact our second amendment has nothing to do with hunting and sport shooting.
If you tell people to strongly that they are expected to access arms to protect themselves they go into panic mode and turn you off or label you crazy - "How do we fight a government that has the Nuclear bomb?"
Post up the letter you are supposed to respond to so that we can dismantle its ideas one by one.
I recommend it all the time....
Get this book....
It can be found in other places also.
Everything anyone needs to know about what/why the Founders were against infringement.
You have to be careful with that argument.
Most people are afraid to accept the fact our second amendment has nothing to do with hunting and sport shooting.
If you tell people to strongly that they are expected to access arms to protect themselves they go into panic mode and turn you off or label you crazy - "How do we fight a government that has the Nuclear bomb?"
Post up the letter you are supposed to respond to so that we can dismantle its ideas one by one.
I recommend it all the time....
Get this book....
It can be found in other places also.
Everything anyone needs to know about what/why the Founders were against infringement.
Contact the Virginia Citizens Defense League and Gun Owners of America that have been spearheading the 2A sanctuary movement in Virginia.
VCDL Contact Info
VCDL Contact Info
| Contact Us MAILING ADDRESS: PO. Box 513, Newington, VA 22122 TELEPHONE NUMBERS ACROSS THE STATE (804) 639-0600 • (703) 372-3285 • (757) 271-3705 • (540) 446-5783 OFFICERS
|
Our Right to Keep & Bear Arms is derived from the first Law of Nature...the duty of self-preservation. This Right is not derived from government. Government exists for the sole purpose to secure these Rights of the people. The Right to Keep & Bear Arms does not come from the 2nd Amendment. And even if the 2nd Amendment is changed that will not change my Natural Right to personally defend my life, liberty, or property. The amendment was added to the constitution to expressly enumerate and codify this philosophy into our legislative framework as a LIMITATION on government power. Simply speaking, any action running counter to that is going against the constitution, civil liberties, and human rights. If we are willing, on any level, to fail to uphold one natural right, where will that end? If you're locality is unable to support that, then they MUST be called into question, as the ONLY function of good government is to secure these rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security - Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
krisannehall.com
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security - Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
Open Letter re: “Gun Legislation”
Online Presence of Constitutional Educator, Speaker, Author - KrisAnne Hall
KrisAnne Hall is awesome. Worth re-reading her biography and how she came to be a Constitutional Originalist.
that's great. thxOur Right to Keep & Bear Arms is derived from the first Law of Nature...the duty of self-preservation. This Right is not derived from government. Government exists for the sole purpose to secure these Rights of the people. The Right to Keep & Bear Arms does not come from the 2nd Amendment. And even if the 2nd Amendment is changed that will not change my Natural Right to personally defend my life, liberty, or property. The amendment was added to the constitution to expressly enumerate and codify this philosophy into our legislative framework as a LIMITATION on government power. Simply speaking, any action running counter to that is going against the constitution, civil liberties, and human rights. If we are willing, on any level, to fail to uphold one natural right, where will that end? If you're locality is unable to support that, then they MUST be called into question, as the ONLY function of good government is to secure these rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security - Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
Open Letter re: “Gun Legislation”
Online Presence of Constitutional Educator, Speaker, Author - KrisAnne Hall
To force the population to outsource their most fundamental right, daily self-preservation, to a third party (the government, police, etc) is inviting extreme tragedy into our society. None of us can carry a policeman in our pockets at the end of the day, so I usually redirect the line of questioning to: It isn’t why do we want to own guns, but it is why would anyone want to try to take them away?
Hi,
Because IF guns were the problem and guns were so bad; then why do all the Politicians have security team with guns......
Are their lives supposed to be more important than mine?
Sincerely,
Theis
Because IF guns were the problem and guns were so bad; then why do all the Politicians have security team with guns......
Are their lives supposed to be more important than mine?
Sincerely,
Theis
Well that's easy to answer. Of course their lives are more important than ours. This gives insight into what they really think of the peasants. We are not the same as them. They are better. The rules don't apply to them. Flying in jets polluting the environment is ok for them but not us. Having guns to protect themselves is needed for them as well just not us peasants.
Q
QuickNDirty
Guest
This is one of the gists of what I'm planning on stating at the Feb 26th hearing on pro-gun topics in Austin, TX.
- Using the rally in VA as an example, it should be obvious for all to see that armed citizens are not the problem
- Using the endless stream of arrests made for violent crimes against the public which are often committed with unlawfully obtained/carried weapons, it should be obvious for all to see that gun control legislation is largely ineffective
- The second amendment to the constitution is clear. The government (local, state, OR federal) CANNOT pass legislation that infringes on our right to keep and bear arms.
- Repeal legislation that requires licensing to carry firearms in TX
- Organizations like TX Law Shield should not need to exist. Create legislation that better shields individuals from retaliation via the legal system in self-defense cases
- Create legislation that makes it a crime (Felony) to submit bills that undermine the Bill of Rights
- Thank you, have a nice day.
- Using the rally in VA as an example, it should be obvious for all to see that armed citizens are not the problem
- Using the endless stream of arrests made for violent crimes against the public which are often committed with unlawfully obtained/carried weapons, it should be obvious for all to see that gun control legislation is largely ineffective
- The second amendment to the constitution is clear. The government (local, state, OR federal) CANNOT pass legislation that infringes on our right to keep and bear arms.
- Repeal legislation that requires licensing to carry firearms in TX
- Organizations like TX Law Shield should not need to exist. Create legislation that better shields individuals from retaliation via the legal system in self-defense cases
- Create legislation that makes it a crime (Felony) to submit bills that undermine the Bill of Rights
- Thank you, have a nice day.
Let me preface my next statement with I am a hardcore Constitutionalist and absolute BoR defender. But I find using the constitution as the basis of my argument FOR the 2A opens up leverage for anti-2A to say "the constitution can be changed, its designed to be amended". Which they are 200% correct. I obviously get on my soapbox that any modification to the BoR would be a dramatic shift of our freedoms in America.
But I instead stick to appealing to self-preservation aspect, and evoke the constitution later. Anyone experience the same, and if so, whats your approach?
But I instead stick to appealing to self-preservation aspect, and evoke the constitution later. Anyone experience the same, and if so, whats your approach?
Yes the Constitution can be changed with a convention of states. I honestly think we need one to get rid of the 17rth amendment and re -affirm the Second Amendment among other things. I have friends that say it would end up in a run-away convention and we could lose everything. If that happens, then that is what revolutions are for.
Former LE here.
A very small part of the arguement is this.
Law enforcements main job is to respond to crimes, investigate crimes and arrest perpetrators. LE can try to prevent crime through deterrence by arresting perpetrators. They cannot however truly prevent crime, or protect you or any one else. They can only arrest people. Then the otherside of the system let's people go free that shouldn't be out.
Criminals commit crimes regularly and are caught seldomly.
A very small part of the arguement is this.
Law enforcements main job is to respond to crimes, investigate crimes and arrest perpetrators. LE can try to prevent crime through deterrence by arresting perpetrators. They cannot however truly prevent crime, or protect you or any one else. They can only arrest people. Then the otherside of the system let's people go free that shouldn't be out.
Criminals commit crimes regularly and are caught seldomly.
I would also add that at this point the 2nd A is STILL part of our U.S. Constitution. Until or if the constitution is ratified it is a constitutional right. The failure to allow that right is no different than ignoring any of the others.
The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act was passed in 1915. It fully regulated opium derivatives and coca leaves (cocaine), making it illegal to produce, import, posses, buy, sell, transport, or consume, without a government license, or permission.
After 100+ years of full regulation, here were are in an "opioid crisis".
Banning things has never and can never work, as it instantly creates a black market and profit motive for someone to supply those banned items.
After 100+ years of full regulation, here were are in an "opioid crisis".
Banning things has never and can never work, as it instantly creates a black market and profit motive for someone to supply those banned items.
Pro? Its reality, written in the constitution. If they don’t like it then they can try and get it removed. But we the people aren’t having any more infringement than what has already been gracefully agreed to.
You want safety then fix the morally repugnant society you choose to live in.
Thats a counter argument, not directed at you Dunraven.
You want safety then fix the morally repugnant society you choose to live in.
Thats a counter argument, not directed at you Dunraven.
1. People have a basic right to physical security.
2. This right is violated by (unjustified) assaults and is threatened by burglaries.
3. People have a right to take measures reasonably deemed to be necessary to
prevent their basic rights from being violated.
4. The right stated in 3 supports a right to self-defense.
5. In present-day circumstances in the United States, adequate self-defense requires
that competent adults have the option of private handgun ownership.
6. Thus, competent adults in the United States today have a moral right to private
handgun ownership.
7. This moral right is not justifiably overridden by appeal to the general welfare or
by any conflicting moral right—at least in the case of competent, law-abiding
adults.
8. So the moral right to private ownership of handguns by competent, law-abiding
adults should be protected by law in the United States.
The above uses a valid argument structure so the truth of the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion(s).
I do not think that many high-functioning, intelligent, rational, and ethical people would dispute the soundness of premises 1-4.
Imo, where the majority of Americans today would dispute the truth or soundness of any of the above premises would be premises 5 and/or 7.
Basically, I think any serious and intellectually honest discussion would come down to:
(1) without the right to possess and own and carry firearms; are the rights to: (1) self-protection and (2) self-preservation adequately served?
and
(2) "are there any rights that override the right to self-preservation and self-defense though the use of firearms"?
Personally, I think that firearm ownership leads to more good than bad. I don't think it can be overlooked that there are an estimated 2.5 million, high range estimate, defensive uses of firearms per year in the US alone.
2. This right is violated by (unjustified) assaults and is threatened by burglaries.
3. People have a right to take measures reasonably deemed to be necessary to
prevent their basic rights from being violated.
4. The right stated in 3 supports a right to self-defense.
5. In present-day circumstances in the United States, adequate self-defense requires
that competent adults have the option of private handgun ownership.
6. Thus, competent adults in the United States today have a moral right to private
handgun ownership.
7. This moral right is not justifiably overridden by appeal to the general welfare or
by any conflicting moral right—at least in the case of competent, law-abiding
adults.
8. So the moral right to private ownership of handguns by competent, law-abiding
adults should be protected by law in the United States.
The above uses a valid argument structure so the truth of the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion(s).
I do not think that many high-functioning, intelligent, rational, and ethical people would dispute the soundness of premises 1-4.
Imo, where the majority of Americans today would dispute the truth or soundness of any of the above premises would be premises 5 and/or 7.
Basically, I think any serious and intellectually honest discussion would come down to:
(1) without the right to possess and own and carry firearms; are the rights to: (1) self-protection and (2) self-preservation adequately served?
and
(2) "are there any rights that override the right to self-preservation and self-defense though the use of firearms"?
Personally, I think that firearm ownership leads to more good than bad. I don't think it can be overlooked that there are an estimated 2.5 million, high range estimate, defensive uses of firearms per year in the US alone.
I keep saying it - If you want to limit/infringe on my Creator Given Right to Keep and Bear Arms and to protect myself and my Family then you *MUST* alter the Constitution to that effect and force this Nation (a Constitutional Republic) and it's Government to rescind and abolish my Right to self defense. If one wants to infringe then there is a perfectly legal and documented Way for folks to do that - Convene a Constitutional Convention and get the necessary votes/support to repeal the second amendment.
Should be simple if the numbers are right that a vast majority wants US disarmed. I digress...I am imbued with certain inalienable Rights guaranteed in writing by the Constitution to keep and bear arms and any attempts to infringe on that Right are criminal unless the Constitution is amended. I'm not the one having to defend my Rights - those that seek to over ride the Constitution need to repeal the Amendment and alter the very framework of this nation.
Otherwise, I consider any attempt by any person or persons to disarm me to be criminal and will react accordingly. I am ordained by my Creator with the Right to keep and bear *in writing* and anyone seeking to disarm/infringe without due process (repealing the Second Amendment) is a *criminal* and will be treated by myself as such. Simple - you want my guns then repeal the Second Amendment. Otherwise your attempts to infringe and disarm are criminal actions and will be met same as if any other criminal demanded my compliance.
It is that simple. Repeal the Second Amendment or pound fucking sand, asshole. I am not bound by anyone's wants or demands. I am a free man and the frame work of this nation outlines my Rights in writing.
VooDoo
Should be simple if the numbers are right that a vast majority wants US disarmed. I digress...I am imbued with certain inalienable Rights guaranteed in writing by the Constitution to keep and bear arms and any attempts to infringe on that Right are criminal unless the Constitution is amended. I'm not the one having to defend my Rights - those that seek to over ride the Constitution need to repeal the Amendment and alter the very framework of this nation.
Otherwise, I consider any attempt by any person or persons to disarm me to be criminal and will react accordingly. I am ordained by my Creator with the Right to keep and bear *in writing* and anyone seeking to disarm/infringe without due process (repealing the Second Amendment) is a *criminal* and will be treated by myself as such. Simple - you want my guns then repeal the Second Amendment. Otherwise your attempts to infringe and disarm are criminal actions and will be met same as if any other criminal demanded my compliance.
It is that simple. Repeal the Second Amendment or pound fucking sand, asshole. I am not bound by anyone's wants or demands. I am a free man and the frame work of this nation outlines my Rights in writing.
VooDoo
Another thought:
As it stands, why does anyone's vote ever matter? Because politicians know that if they completely disregarded the results of an election (which happens in other countries all over the world regularly) that American citizens are armed well enough to cause ALOT of trouble for them. Washington politicians already attempt to usurp the vote of the people with things like bullshit investigations. What makes anyone think they will honor our votes if we are disarmed?
As it stands, why does anyone's vote ever matter? Because politicians know that if they completely disregarded the results of an election (which happens in other countries all over the world regularly) that American citizens are armed well enough to cause ALOT of trouble for them. Washington politicians already attempt to usurp the vote of the people with things like bullshit investigations. What makes anyone think they will honor our votes if we are disarmed?
Just point out that, the constitution was not a document granting our rights. Our rights were never the gov's to grant. It was basically a binding document written TO the government declaring what our rights were and they were not to be touched. That is what separates us from the rest of the world. The fact that the bill of rights mentions the right to keep and bare arms was the 2nd most important, should prove the importance of it to preserve a free republic.
Hi,
Could always put the question back onto them so you can use their own answers as the answer for personal needs of firearms.
Q: Why does the Government require fire extinguishers in commercial buildings, apartment complexes, etc when there is a fire department 4 miles away?
Q. Why is there a Government required spare tire in your new automobile purchase when there is a tire shop 10 miles from where you live?
Sincerely,
Theis
Could always put the question back onto them so you can use their own answers as the answer for personal needs of firearms.
Q: Why does the Government require fire extinguishers in commercial buildings, apartment complexes, etc when there is a fire department 4 miles away?
Q. Why is there a Government required spare tire in your new automobile purchase when there is a tire shop 10 miles from where you live?
Sincerely,
Theis
Why rebut at all? You can not change someone's beliefs with facts. They don't believe "your" facts.
There was a story discussed here a year or so ago about a woman in Sweden or something that was pro Muslim immigration. She was beaten and gang raped by those she advocated for. Did she change her mind? NO! She continues to advocate for more Muslim immigration.
The best argument is to ask them which other rights are they willing to give up. They look you straight in the eyes and call you a tin foil hat conspirators. "The government isn't going to turn on you".
How are you going to change that?
There was a story discussed here a year or so ago about a woman in Sweden or something that was pro Muslim immigration. She was beaten and gang raped by those she advocated for. Did she change her mind? NO! She continues to advocate for more Muslim immigration.
The best argument is to ask them which other rights are they willing to give up. They look you straight in the eyes and call you a tin foil hat conspirators. "The government isn't going to turn on you".
How are you going to change that?
honestly, don't make it about the 2a. booze and cell phones have been responsible for (or at least indicators in) thousands of drunk and distracted driving deaths and carnage. yet no one is banning booze, phones or even automobiles. instead the people who commit these crimes are being prosecuted. it should be the same for firearms. you can own them to your heart's content, but if you commit crimes with them you go to, and stay in, jail.
Ummmm, the Readers Digest version.Can you copy the letter here? The one you're supposed to rebut? That would help.
Who needs a 30 round clip.
Who needs a machine gun.
Who needs a............
Who needs a.............
She types on her I-phone because she has no idea what a number 2 pencil is. If you tell her she doesn't need high speed internet because they didn't have that when the COTUS was written it doesn't register in their brains.
i remember the multiple tactical teams going after the lone remaining boston marathon bomber. 5+ per team, fully loaded out with AR's (if not M4's), stacks of 30 round mags, and handguns with multiple 17+ round mags. most of don't have tac teams backing us up at home or out and about. but we at least should be able to have the loadout they have, if one, two, or three or more miscreants want to rob, rape or worse to us, our spouses and children. after all, they had all that and more for one loser unarmed teenager.
I'm not a history buff and I don't agree with a lot of how we as a people treat others, but with that said look how the Government treated the Indians to get land, power and ever hear of the trail of tears, some of the battles fought for the western areas to secure areas for white settlers and make those areas safer.
What would stop our gov. from doing the same to people not willing to give up a certain why of life or anything the gov. decided to oppose.
Will Smith said he thought that Trump supporters should be cleansed so if a group didn't fit they could be treated much in the same way the American Indian was treated years ago. JMHO and .02
What would stop our gov. from doing the same to people not willing to give up a certain why of life or anything the gov. decided to oppose.
Will Smith said he thought that Trump supporters should be cleansed so if a group didn't fit they could be treated much in the same way the American Indian was treated years ago. JMHO and .02
So many ways to rebut that. But, as some have pointed out in this thread already... There is no logically-based factual argument that can rebut an emotionally held position. "Who needs ________?" is an emotional argument.
So, while many of us are prone to defaulting to facts, because it makes SENSE to use facts and logic, the only way to "effectively" argue an emotional point is with an emotional counterpoint.
If you want to make it really short....
Who needs a whiny bitch? But, here you are!
Or, you could go more philosophical...
I hope I never need a gun, or 30 rounds. But, if I ever do need a gun or more than an arbitrary number of rounds (such as 10) to defend myself or my family, I better have it. The police won't be there in time. Furthermore the police have no legal duty to save me or protect my family. That's a fact that's been decided twice by the Supreme Court and several more times in lower federal courts (I can recite the cases from memory).
How many rounds would I "need" to defend myself in this scenario?
How many rounds does a police officer need when faced with multiple murderous criminals? How many rounds should the NYPD officers have been allowed to have when faced with attempted assassination last week?
How many words do you need to exercise Free Speech (1st Amendment)? Do you even NEED Free Speech? Do you NEED the Right to petition government officers? Do you NEED the Right to be secure in your person and belongings against unreasonable search and seizure (4th Amendment)? Is there a limit to your Speech or belongings against infringement of the associated Rights? Please point out any restrictions on those Rights.
What about your Right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself (5th Amendment)?
Does EVERYONE "need" the Right to Due Process (5th, 6th, 14th Amendments)? Should there be exceptions?
If your daughter is being raped in front of you, how many rounds do you need to defend her?
If their argument is emotionally-based, the only way to counter is with more emotions. Facts and logic will fall on deaf ears.
The reality is that they HAVE to go "emotional." They don't have facts on their side. So, they must use emotional arguments. We've got to stop using logic and facts. They don't work. They don't matter (to them).
Last edited:
So many ways to rebut that. But, as some have pointed out in this thread already... There is no logically-based factual argument that can rebut an emotionally held position. "Who needs ________?" is an emotional argument.
So, while many of us are prone to defaulting to facts, because it makes SENSE to use facts and logic, the only way to "effectively" argue an emotional point is with an emotional counterpoint.
If you want to make it really short....
Who needs a whiny bitch? But, here you are!
Or, you could go more philosophical...
I hope I never need a gun, or 30 rounds. But, if I ever do need a gun or more than an arbitrary number of rounds (such as 10) to defend myself or my family, I better have it. The police won't be there in time. Furthermore the police have no legal duty to save me or protect my family. That's a fact that's been decided twice by the Supreme Court and several more times in lower federal courts (I can recite the cases from memory).
How many rounds would I "need" to defend myself in this scenario?
How many rounds does a police officer need when faced with multiple murderous criminals? How many rounds should the NYPD officers have been allowed to have when faced with attempted assassination last week?
How many words do you need to exercise Free Speech (1st Amendment)? Do you even NEED Free Speech? Do you NEED the Right to petition government officers? Do you NEED the Right to be secure in your person and belongings against unreasonable search and seizure (4th Amendment)? Is there a limit to your Speech or belongings against infringement of the associated Rights? Please point out any restrictions on those Rights.
What about your Right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself (5th Amendment)?
Does EVERYONE "need" the Right to Due Process (5th, 6th, 14th Amendments)? Should there be exceptions?
If your daughter is being raped in front of you, how many rounds do you need to defend her?
If their argument is emotionally-based, the only way to counter is with more emotions. Facts and logic will fall on deaf ears.
The reality is that they HAVE to go "emotional." They don't have facts on their side. So, they must use emotional arguments. We've got to stop using logic and facts. They don't work. They don't matter.
Exactly Right! You can’t reason with anyone that has the emotions of a two year old! Don’t bother to engage, it’s a waist of your time to argue with a fool!
Lots of good stuff.
I like going to responsibilities for your actions. Inanimate objects are not to blame.
Pencils don't misspell words
Spoons don't make people fat
Firearms don't kill people
Blunt objects are far more dangerous than firearms in a moment of rage.
Last, where the family goes, so goes society.
Morals. Respect. Responsibility. Self control. Discipline. Faith. Hope. Love. Etc. Etc.
All taught in the family. All bricks on which to build a society.
Why do you think the govt wants control of the schools?!?!
So many angles. Good Luck man!!
Regards,
DT
I like going to responsibilities for your actions. Inanimate objects are not to blame.
Pencils don't misspell words
Spoons don't make people fat
Firearms don't kill people
Blunt objects are far more dangerous than firearms in a moment of rage.
Last, where the family goes, so goes society.
Morals. Respect. Responsibility. Self control. Discipline. Faith. Hope. Love. Etc. Etc.
All taught in the family. All bricks on which to build a society.
Why do you think the govt wants control of the schools?!?!
So many angles. Good Luck man!!
Regards,
DT
There are SO MANY smart people in this thread, that have said SO MANY smart, logical, factual, truthful statements that it truly is inspiring. At the same time, this whole thread exists to formulate a reply to an 'emotional' (person?).
I too think that there's no point in rebutting/replying with ANYTHING that is factual/logical or truthful. Turn the topic specifically to the "emotional" and discuss that.
Talk about "knee-jerk" reactions, and how well they are applied. Talk about 'feelings' and how much they pay the monthly bills. Talk about 'day-dreams' and how well they 'get the job done'.
Simply because, none of us live in a true utopia, though we are ALL doing the best that we can with our hand that's been dealt. How we decide/choose to move forward is up to us, individually.
While there are a few paintings created each year that are sold for insane dollar amounts, the vast majority of 'artists' are broke. So should painting be eliminated/restricted, because you don't "need" it and it's of practically no value or use?
It's not the application, it's the concept.
I too think that there's no point in rebutting/replying with ANYTHING that is factual/logical or truthful. Turn the topic specifically to the "emotional" and discuss that.
Talk about "knee-jerk" reactions, and how well they are applied. Talk about 'feelings' and how much they pay the monthly bills. Talk about 'day-dreams' and how well they 'get the job done'.
Simply because, none of us live in a true utopia, though we are ALL doing the best that we can with our hand that's been dealt. How we decide/choose to move forward is up to us, individually.
While there are a few paintings created each year that are sold for insane dollar amounts, the vast majority of 'artists' are broke. So should painting be eliminated/restricted, because you don't "need" it and it's of practically no value or use?
It's not the application, it's the concept.
Thanks for the above, and I'd agree in many certain situations. Finding a way to mix the above with strategic facts woven in would be a real mental crush for the other side.
EDIT To Add: unfortunately, something that needs to be recognized is the reality of trying to even have a meaningful conversation now a days with someone who disagrees with the purpose of the 2A. I truly do fear our inability as a nation to have a conversation with someone who disagrees with you. We are so polarized today that disagreement = I HATE YOU AND EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU.
Tragic.
Follow-up on the 2A sanctuary meeting: there were about 12 citizens there in favor, none opposed. This committee passed it out of committee 5-0. Now it goes to the entire county board. Both the county sheriff and DA spoke in favor.
Similar threads
