How to Win the Gun Control Debate in Favor of Guns

Tom provides tips and talking point on how to win gun control debate with questions rather than facts.

Winning the gun control debate
How to Win the Gun Control Debate in Favor of Guns
Tom McHale
Tom McHale

USA –-(Ammoland.com)- In case you hadn't noticed, there's been a big political debate about gun control in the aftermath of the horrific Las Vegas attack. This event set the record for fewest minutes to politicize once the news hit. (*thank you, Hillary)

That got me thinking. Why the mad dash to policy “solutions?” No, seriously. Why is there always an instant knee-jerk reaction to impose gun control measures after any significant attack involving guns?

Yeah, I know, there's a deep-seated political agenda at play that seeks any and all opportunities to advance the cause. I get that. What's less obvious is why ordinary people usually not immersed in the gun rights debate jump on the same bandwagon.

I was having a civil discussion online recently, and the following comment was included.

It would be wonderful if responsible gun owners would come to the table with constructive ideas to stop the next one.

Don't take that out of context; it wasn't in any way intended to be snarky or biting. As I said, we were having a respectful discussion about our different points of view. Anyway, it got me thinking. We hear comments like that one frequently. When I hear it, what my brain processes is something like this:

Why don't gun owners accept more ‘common sense' gun restrictions, laws, and policies?

And therein lies the key

The gun control debate question always starts from a premise of “fixing the gun issue.” It's never, ever about how to address the broader issue of people with bad intentions. How do we know this?

When similar attacks happen that don't involve the use of a gun, there is never a similar cry about implementing common sense restrictions on assault trucks, cans of gasoline and whatever else a terrorist or homicidal maniac chooses to use. Have we already forgotten the Nice France attack that was even worse than this one, but done with a truck? Have you ever even heard of the 2011 Monterrey Casino attack? Cartel thugs stormed and doused the facility with gasoline. All 52 people killed died from either fire or smoke inhalation. 52 people from cans of gasoline. Let that sink in.

In those situations, society rapidly accepted the universal truth that there are, and always have been, evil people who will choose to inflict harm on innocents. There was never a moments discussion of restricting truck or fuel “rights.” That's not a defeatist attitude; it's just a simple and somewhat demoralizing fact. As a society, no matter how many laws we make and how many things we ban, we can't stop every person everywhere who quietly plans to inflict harm.

Does that mean we give up? Of course not, but to think that knee-jerk solutions will legislate away human behavioral issues is a fantasy. Gun rights supporters know, from decades of data, that these solutions don't work and that's why we oppose them. Are we in favor of restricting access to criminals and mentally unstable people? Sure. In fact, the organization everyone loves to label “terrorist” (that would be the NRA) has pushed Washington to do exactly that and made great strides in the process. But blaming the broad community of law-abiding citizens for the act of an evil few is not a recipe for success and drives the backlash. How would the casual wine drinker and car driver react if exposed to a constant media drumbeat of “It's your fault!!!” every day when more people were murdered by drunk drivers?

I personally think fear drives the response and I get that. Why else would we accept the fact that drivers murder more people than idiots with guns? No one gets upset about that, yet in the first 24 hours after the Las Vegas attack, 39 Americans were murdered in the US, and 39 more every single 24-hour period throughout the year. Yet there's no national emotional outrage. I think it's because the same people screaming for gun control like their beer but don't understand the role of guns.

And make no mistake, as a conscious and deliberate choice, drunk driving deaths are murder, not “accidents.” However, there's no outrage against beer or four-door cars.

When a gun is involved, there is never any talk of man's evil nature; the discussion goes directly to gun control within minutes. Why? I suppose it's fear of the unknown and a compelling need to do something – anything – to make things better, even if deep down in our hearts we know it's a pointless and ineffective solution. The problem is that people who aren't familiar with the issues don't yet know what is and isn't a pointless solution. We all tend to become instant policy experts on whatever topic flashes across the newswires on any given day. After reading a couple of articles and scanning some headlines, we as human gun control debate bots are ready to take on the world, right? The problem with the gun rights topic is that you and I, as AmmoLand News community participants, are generally far more informed on gun rights issues than the average Joe who scans the headlines after a tragic crime like the one in Las Vegas. That's not a pompous or arrogant statement. There are plenty of people far more informed than I am on a myriad of policy issues. This one just happens to the one where I have deep knowledge based on lots and lots of data and study. I suspect you do too.

So what can you do in win the gun control debate?

Arguing doesn't work. It may feel good and even satisfying to call the other side stupid, but it won't accomplish anything. Few people are actually stupid. They might have beliefs that differ from ours, but that could stem from a variety of reasons. Ignorance sounds like an insult but it's not. It's just a lack of knowledge on a given topic. We're all ignorant about plenty of things. There are plenty of people ignorant on the crime and guns issues, but that doesn't mean they're stupid.

Spouting facts and data feels good too, but that's unlikely to change someone's mind in the heat of the moment. Data is like good coffee. It needs time to percolate to gain maximum effectiveness. Add to that the fact that very few of us are likely to change our minds, even if we know we are wrong, in the heat of a discussion or argument. To obtain a rational change of opinion “win,” I think the following things are necessary.

Listen

No one cares what you know until they know that you care. The fastest way to establish mutual respect is to listen. By listening to the other side, even if you disagree with it, you're investing. You're purchasing some time that the other person will listen to you when it's your turn to talk.

Ask questions

Because none of us likes to publicly admit defeat, you're rarely going to change someone's assumptions by spouting facts and opinions. To complete a change of opinion that person is going to have to arrive at a new conclusion on their own. All you can do is feed that process and send them off to ponder.

I ran across a great article this week written by Leah Libresco of the Washington Post. To make a long story short, the article “I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.” outlines her change of thought process on the whole gun control issue. After studying the data for a research project for the FiveThirtyEight data journalism website, she completely reversed her position. Read the article, it's well worth it and offers some great insight as to how people actually can arrive at a new opinion.

So, and I know it's hard because I fail on a daily basis, try not to spout facts and opinions. Rather, ask questions.

Do you think the “gun crime epidemic” is increasing? Why?

Do you think people ever successfully use guns for defensive purposes? How many times per year do you think that happens?

Do you think the overall murder rate really decreased in Australia and the U.K. after gun control was implemented?

Are guns legal in France? Haven't there been a lot of mass shooting attacks there in the past couple of years?

Are there more mass shootings now than ever before?

Are there more murders these days? Why do you think that?

You get the idea. If you can frame the discussion as questions, the other just might ask you for the answer. And that makes the gun control debate a whole different ball game.

About

Tom McHale is the author of the Insanely Practical Guides book series that guides new and experienced shooters alike in a fun, approachable, and practical way. His books are available in print and eBook format on Amazon. You can also find him on Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest.

  • 80 thoughts on “How to Win the Gun Control Debate in Favor of Guns

    1. “Gun Control” has *never* been about guns; it’s about CONTROL.
      the VAST majority of Liberals, unfortunately, do not process logic or facts – they are 100% dominated by their emotions. If you say something factual, and it goes against what they “feel” – they will likely disagree at best and attack you at worst. I realize there are people out there who are kind of fence-sitters who might be leaning toward “gun control” as a good thing – and these people you might be able to educate, but the average Leftist is already suffering from chronic cognitive dissonance – so all of the listening in the world isn’t going to get you anywhere. If you ask them a question and they they give you an answer, no matter how insane or dramatically wrong the answer is, you will NOT be able to sway them from that belief because it’s what they FEEL that’s important – not what’s real.

      I have managed to take a few people who were fence-sitters and educate them to the reality of the situation, but any time I’ve tried to engage with a hard-core Leftist, they simply refuse to listen to anything you have to say. Even just finding “common ground” I’ve been told “There IS no common ground between you and me – you are a Conservative and I will never agree to anything to you say – I hate everything you stand for.” In the face of total insanity like that, well, you have to just walk away.

      1. We PotG do a really poor job distinguishing between the ardent anti-gun people vs. those who are “on-the-fence”. Contemplating what to say to Michal Bloomberg and the board of the Joyce Foundation is a total waste of time.

        The ONLY productive thing to do is to work with those who are fence-sitters. Imagine a day in the future when the fence-sitters have been immunized to the arguments of the gun-controllers. At this point, what remains are those ardent gun-controllers and those who merely won’t be persuaded that their sentiments are misguided.

        Now, the next group to address are those who merely won’t be persuaded that their SENTIMENTS are misguided. The point to make to this audience is that their gun-control cause is FUTILE. There remain too few votes who are sympathetic to their sentiments. Moreover, even if they could get the votes, the effort at gun control can’t succeed. Criminals and crazies will get guns. Push the gun-control issue far enough and there might be civil war.

        Picture the point when those who won’t be persuaded that their sentiments are misguided have turned there attention to other issues such as promoting world peace. Now, the only remaining controllers are those who won’t give up the fight no matter what. Bloomberg will fight for gun control from beyond the grave. Then, we can handle the problem politically.

      2. i’m beginning to wonder if the “Progressive” leftist gun grabbers cynically consider all the “gun deaths” as collateral damage on the way to completely banning civilian ownership of firearms.

        Look at the horrible record in cities like Chicago lead by Democrat gun grabbing regimes. The Chicago PD has a miserable clearance rate of only about 12 percent of homicides. Nobody is charged in the rest of them. Collateral crimes like car jacking are up 400% in only a few years.

        There is no “common ground” or “common sense” or “reasonable discussion” with people who hide their true agenda, consistently act hypocritically and lie as a way of life. This is what is regularly encountered in the cynical anti-gun activists and politicians.

        I am not, and never will be interested in losing my ability to protect myself and my family. Period. End of discussion. There is nobody else on earth that is interested in protecting me, and that will be there as often as I am. Anything else is just a delusional fantasy.

        I am not, and never will be interested in establishing prohibition of firearms – a plan that has been well proven to never work effectively in a free society, only resulting in building up and funding a violent criminal class.

        if you want to discuss being truthful about the true gun grabber agenda, and to accept the miserable crime interdication performance of Democrat lead big city governments, I’ll be happy to listen. But… Only the voters in those jurisdictions can solve that problem.

      3. There are two basic “gun control” groups of people. The largest group consists of those that simply hate the killings, murder and violence. This group really does not understand that people kill people not guns. The gas can analogy is perfect. The smaller group and the more dangerous are those that are responsible for actually driving the narrative. The Soros, Bloomberg, Clinton crowd. They want control of the people and they know the only way they get that is to rid the rest of us of our guns. Now it is important to be able to fully understand this you first have understand this group sees nearly everyone else as nothing more than a draft horse. A slave to their needs and desires. The people are only important in as much as the people are able to produce for the elite.

    2. it’s NOT A GUN ISSUE, IT’S A MORAL ISSUE.
      and you CAN’T FIX EVIL INTENT WITH MORE STUPID LAWS.
      but the COMMUNIST DEMORATS KEEP TRYING.

    3. “After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.” ~ William Burroughs

    4. Perhaps redirect the debate to a more productive channel. The “need more gun control” argument after a mass shooting instantly politicizes the situation and diverts away from possible causes and solutions that might prevent future events. The Las Vegas tragedy seems to be a typical example. There seems to be no motive whatever. But there is a report that the shooter was taking a prescription drug for several months. Drug induced maniacs don’t need a motive. Virtually every perpetrator you ever heard of relating to mass shootings has been associated with the use of legally prescribed drugs of the SSRI type or others. I wrote the following almost five years ago in January of 2013 after Newtown:

      “I suggest taking note of the information at the SSRI Stories webpage. It presents a mind-boggling collection of school shooting and other maniacal action reports that have linked perpetrators to the use of legal drugs of the Prozac/Luvox class. That this situation has existed without study for decades and has yet to be addressed, largely due to the shrieking demands for gun control after each related tragedy, speaks volumes about why the ideological solutions widely supported by the mainstream media divert all attention away from necessary study of, and changes to, what appears to be a legal drug related catastrophe of the first order.”

      Here are URLs to the old and new SSRI Stories websites, which contain anecdotal information in the form of published news stories containing the drug link information.
      New: https://ssristories.org/
      Old (look down on page): http://www.ssristories.net/

      How long until those interested in ending such mayhem take note of the clear drug related nexus and insist that it be part of the public discussion? It did not happen after Newtown, even though there were many who suggested the possible drug related connection back then. Maybe now that there is concern over the opioid epidemic and legal drugs, more attention will be paid to the SSRI/mass shooting connection.

      1. You’re trying to create a nexus between this type of drug use and mass murder. However, your reasoning is flawed because it lacks one vital factor; what is the total number of people who take these drugs who own firearms and what is the final percentage of the original total that have committed murder, mass murder, or any violent crime with any weapon? Under your theory we could also posit that, most likely, all mass murderers owned cars, therefore we can draw a correlation between car ownership, those who also own guns and mass murders; 100% mass murderers are car owners therefore car ownership must factor in to mass murder!

        You can see the fatal flaw here also applies to your theory.

      2. Interesting piece to be sure. Post Columbine before the gag order was imposed just about everyone in EMS at any level were asking “How much Prozac were they on?”
        So, the questions have been asked. A lot! So why hasn’t this been answered?
        Follow the money has always been this retired Paramedics response…

      3. David E. Young published a great book. Every historian, lawyer and gun owner should read it.
        The Origin of the Second Amendment — A Documentary History of the …
        http://www.secondamendmentinfo.com/
        Jan 4, 2017 – Link to homepage for David E. Young’s definitive history of the Second … may also be ordered directly from the publisher, Golden Oak Books, …

        The nexus between SSRI drugs and murder has been known since GUN WEEK was published in Ohio.
        It may be that people with mental problems are prescribed drugs, it is also possible that the drugs and withdrawl can trigger murder.

        Listen to the ads on TV for a wide range of drugs, some prescribed for skin and bowel problems that include warnings for suicide. They don’t say murder on TV but such thoughts and actions do happen a rate above a control group.

      4. “. . . instantly politicizes the situation and diverts away from possible causes [ such as SSRIs ] and solutions that might prevent future events.

        I respectfully and sincerely disagree with the candidate cause; while, at the same time, whole-heartedly endorse the tactic of diverting – or perhaps defusing – attention to candidate causes and solutions.

        The problem we face is that there is some superficial appeal to the argument “. . . but for the existence of the gun, this tragedy would not have occurred. A solution to all these tragedies is to eliminate/reduce guns.” It’s entirely reasonable to respond: “It’s not that simple. Let’s look at root causes and their respective solutions”.

        If the Antis insist on a “serious discussion” then we insist that that discussion include root causes. That engages other constituencies (mental heath professionals, feminists, etc.) and complicates the solutions discussion to a level commensurate with the complexity of the problem.

    5. The “reasonable” gun control that the other side considers to be reasonable is always more control, never education, never freedom.
      Reasonable compromise means that a compromise includes something of value for each faction. But when the reasonable compromise means that you only give up and surrender less than all your wealth, worth and rights then it is a matter of time before you have nothing left.
      To the left legislative compromise is like having your 16 year old daughter going on a date. Her date wants sex on the first date, is compromising on the fourth date a compromise that will satisfy Mom and Dad?

    6. “Few people are actually stupid.” I would like to believe this but cannot.
      I live in Ann Arbor. Many in this city have succumbed to the Progressive Narrative. They embrace it passionately here. It is indistinguishable from a fundamentalist Religion, with its saints, sins, holy books and sacraments. The Narrative is impervious to logic, evidence and history. The Narrative was not reasoned into them, so cannot be reasoned out of them. It is robotic, Orwellian and irrational. Consider Antifa, darling of the progressives, which uses fascist tactics to “fight fascism.”
      I feel like I can understand a clear-thinking German living in 1940, looking about him and observing his neighbors and acquaintances becoming Nazis. The process is slow, insidious, and has the assent of the press and the academy.
      If you equate mindlessly accepting a Narrative to being stupid, as I do, then one would have to disagree that there are only a few.

      1. @GB, Quietly sell and get out before these fascists in disguise as “progressives” notice what you have. Those that get out early survive, those that wait to see, don’t get out at all.

    7. I’ve heard that in one country, drug problem has become epidemic and it has manifested it’s effect directly in rising crime rate. Maybe our country shld seriously evaluate the prescription drugs? Maybe we shld start killing the drug pushers? Maybe we shld strictly screen the people trying to migrate? Maybe we shld indeed close our borders? Speaking of the country that has prevalent drug problem is now killing all known pushers and cuddlers. Human rights is now an issue. Their president is now threatening martial law or revolutionary govt. for all people who oppose. By the way, that country is gun free. Only rich people and criminals can own guns.

      1. Are you back again? Geez, were you on vacation or did someone just decide to resurrect the “Gil” moniker again? No matter, as usual your comment bears no relevance to the subject matter discussed.

      2. Hmmmm…. gil, I don’t get the logic ‘typing’ a long comment and saving 2 letters by not typing out the word shOUld. By my count you saved 8 letters. I know this reply is not on subject, but neither was yours.

      3. Your comment about that country overlooks the fact that it is trying proudly to assert is independence from the fascist racist wall street capitalist imperialist mad dog Trumpeters. I would not be surprised if those were the very people who were supplying the drugs as tool of disruption of the processes of historical determinism, dialectical materialism, democratic centralism, collective class struggle, and the labor theory of value.

        We know from previous revolutions (France 1790, Russian 1917, etc.) that you cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggheads. An essential part of this process is to disarm the proletariat so that they will more willingly accept the required re-education. That is why total elimination makes sense.

        1. Ignorance added to stupidity is a terrible thing to broadcast to the general public. We get that you’re a troll. You won’t last long.

    8. You will never have a “civil” debate with someone who’s opposed to guns. They always run off of raw emotion with no logic involved. They are the “useful idiots” that Vladimir Ilyich Lenin spoke of as tools to get Communism to take root in other societies – see how well its worked?! Bottom line is they want complete confiscation of guns, then the Dems can get the control they’ve always wanted – People control! No compromises and no giving ground anymore. Our backs are to the wall and to put it bluntly folks – WE ARE THE DEFENDERS OF OUR LIBERTY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY RECOGNIZED RIGHTS – not Congress, not Trump … US! The line is in the sand, now its time to ingrain the slogan “This far and no further” in our minds and hearts.

      “To those who willing to fight for it … FREEDOM has a flavor the protected will never know.” – LCpl Tim Craft USMC, Siege of Khe Sahn – 1968

      1. Unfortunately, the erosion of liberty has already gone too far. From a culture that embraces the lies of “politically correct” actions to “common sense®” deceptive acts supposedly committed “in the name of the people®” “for the children®”.

        The line is already a bridge too far. Our commitment must be to push back existing infringement.

        The constitution, in a practical sense, is not sacrosanct. All it takes is a legislature (at any level) willing to infringe on the rights recognized in the constitution, and courts that will tolerate that infringement. Today, the Second Amendment is infringed by about 22,000 laws at Federal, State, County and Local levels. This confusing rabbit’s warren of often conflicting laws is, in itself, a barrier to those that live law abiding lives.

        Part of saying “No” is to actively work to push back and eliminate existing infringements. This starts in the states and at the legislative table. Get actively involved with your state level gun rights organization and win for liberty and freedom.

        1. Here is my answer to their “the Government is the ultimate arbiter crap” –
          “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.” – The Declaration of Independence

          This was never meant to be a one time good deal – this is the bedrock of American Ideals!

          1. The key word in the above is “men”. It excludes women, sub-human alien races, and persons who do not own land or slaves. In fact, the author of those words was himself a slave owner! One of his slaves was a female with whom he enjoyably sired several children that were profitably sold into slavery. Men have rights; things that are not men, like trees, stones, women, slaves, and the unwealthy do not have rights. For a better understanding of the rights of women, as specifically instructed by God, see Deuteronomy 21:10 regarding the treatment of prisoners of war.

            1. Hey Dick – if I wanted to hear from an ASS , I would’ve F*rted. you are such a putz! Nice to see you’ve bought into that revisionist history drivel. you must be a product of our fine Obamination educational indoctrination system.

      2. Exactly.

        And while they may say ‘compromise’ they do not mean compromise. They mean ‘you give us what we want’.

        What is the point of discussing anything when the starting position is “You are evil and you will give up your rights. Period.” Seems nothing to discuss with that position.

    9. Agreeing with almost everything in this article, except one thing. A killing from drunk driving is rarely murder. Manslaughter or negligent homicide – yes, but murder – no. The victim is just as dead, his killer is just as guilty, and the needless death is just as tragic, but the intent of the killer rarely rises to the level of murder. Murder requires a specific intent to kill someone. A drunk driver rarely has that intent. It is the drunk driver’s negligence to use the necessary caution (he knows it is deadly dangerous, but he does it anyway) that causes the death of an innocent victim.

      1. You’re completely missing the point. It’s not an “accident.” It’s a direct result of bad decisions and 100% avoidable. Whether it’s 1st, 2nd degree or manslaughter is a meaningless technicality to this discussion.

        1. I agree with Bob about your use of the word “murder”. Yes, the victim is still dead. The drunk driver did operate his or her vehicle. No, the intent was not to end a life. I also believe that many people think “by the grace of G-d that wasn’t me driving”. I don’t know any gun owners that say that after a spree killer. That’s all (for me). Good piece.

        2. Tom: It doesn’t help when you have the supposedly premier gun rights organization, NRA, caving on gun Rights and giving the go-ahead to ATF for even further regulation. This has been an ongoing problem for the past 30 years ever since Wayne LaPierre and Ackerman-McQween became attached at the hip and Wayne’s salary suddenly and, inexplicably, jumped from $200,000 a year to $1,000,000 a year plus benefits like a 7 Series BMW. All this while members continue to be inundated with requests for more and more money.

          A house cleaning at ILA is long overdue but the Board is more concerned with maintaining the status quo than they are defeating gun control which, really, is just code for trying to achieve people control.

          1. There are many degrees of murder. Drunk driving is a crime and a death that results from a crime is some degree of murder.

          2. @Keith and Jim and Mark, Gentlemen, please allow me to banter. Murder requires a guilty mind combined with a guilty act. When drunk one can not form the proper guilty mind element. Thus the usual charge is vehicular manslaughter. Manslaughter not requiring a guilty mind.
            So people are getting convicted, but a form of manslaughter, details depending on the state’s statutes, but not murder.
            I think that Jim is thinking of the felony murder rule. Almost every state has it. When someone or group is committing a crime; and someone (in the crime group, or the police group, or someone not related, even unintentionally) dies, then the perps are guilty of murder pursuant to the felony murder rule.
            So, everyone is kind of right, and kind of not right.

        3. You two are bantering about words used to characterize facts. The facts of drunk-driving deaths and deaths by gunfire are the facts, entirely irrespective of what terms we use to characterize them.

          The useful way of discussing these two death scenarios is to compare the instrumentality involved in each case.

          When discussing drunk-driver deaths we talk about the irresponsible driver, not the alcohol or the car.
          When discussing death by gunfire why do we talk about the gun, not the irresponsible shooter?

      2. Great idea. Let’s kill people who want to decide what they want to ingest or smoke. In the USA they already do that. How many people have been killed by the police because of drug prohibition? Thousands. But, hey, we’re “free”…yea free to do whatever the elite psychopaths and their enforcers say we can do.

        1. My “great idea” answer was SUPPOSED to be for Gil. Not Bob. You’re posting program needs to be able to allow a post to be edited.

        2. It should be abundantly clear that in a free society prohibition never works. It never has, and it never will.

          All prohibition does is create opportunities for organized crime.

          It’s pretty clear that prohibition of alcohol, drugs, sexual exploitation, human trafficking, and firearms has failed worldwide. The “easy route” to social and cultural solutions always results in making things worse.

          Take a look a Europe and all the operations to re-activate supposedly (but incompetently) deactivated firearms. It’s organized crime at it’s most influential and vicious.

        3. You do not need a firearm for freedom. You do not even need a Democracy. There is an elegant form of government that can guarantee your liberty and equality: “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Under such a government there would be no drug prohibition unless the government determines that drugs are bad for the government. And since it is a dictatorship of the proletariat, what is bad for the government is bad for you. They are doing it for your own good, and you should thank them. Likewise the total elimination of firearms.

      3. @Bob, you were fine up till, “… just as guilty,…” Manslaughter and negligent homicide lack the mens rea or guilty mind. Thus not just as guilty. But if the actor was just as guilty then it would necessarily have to include the guilty mind combined with the guilty act, or actus rheas, and it would therefore be murder.

        1. @WildBill…Yesterday I read where Dana Loesch had moved her family because of receiving death threats and threatsof sexual assault .. I ask if you had room to put the poor lady up, didn’t see a reply.

            1. @Van… There is a young weather girl locally could be her sister, trouble is I never know what the forecast was .

          1. @OV, I dunno… she might take one look at me and it would wreck her family. A fine looking figure of a man like me would hate to be the cause of all that.

            1. Old Useless Bill, she’d take one look at your disgusting wrinkly carcass and probably choke on her own vomit.

            2. @ Wild Bill be careful what you say it may cause a whole bunch of lovely ladies to line up at the door just wanting to get a look or supercede the General of the house. After all having a ranch is a big thing to security hunters.

            3. @Wild Bill, they sure take posts down quickly. I think when you said arm wrestle with a troll I assume you mean XX that has reared his ugly head again. I thought he had expired from too many times pleasuring himself. As far as arm wrestling him I would make sure all your vaccinations are up to date before you start. You never know what could be lurking on his person.

            4. Old Useless Bill, did you miss me or do you just want to hold my hand? I see you are still polluting this forum with your self-aggrandizing, pseudo-pedantic claptrap. Don’t you ever just get sick of yourself. You know, make yourself gag from the utter b88shttt you spout each and every day of the week… amen.

              On a lighter note, did you get that social security check I sent you this week? Hate to see the old folks starve in these here troubled times.

          2. I hard Dana’s radio program last night. She asked why and wondered why the anti-gun people accuse us of being violent.
            It is really simple, many of these people are like the preacher addicted to porn, they ascribe their weaknesses to everybody else, so they publicly attack “porn” which to them is everything to do with sex in anyway. Whether it is high school cheerleaders, or XXX they are against it.
            I wish her and her family safety and good luck. Hope she has several ARs and full coverage wideo inside and outside.

    10. @ OV I have been in the barrel for several days now, isn’t it about someone else’s turn? When they put moderate on your post it will disappear just like the one I posted here did. I haven’t seen you comment on this for a while so you must be a favorite right now.

    11. We need to keep on getting the message out to the people who do not understand or look at this issue on a regular basis. Remember if you tell the same lie long enough it will magically become the truth.
      We all know what the leftist’s objective is: REMOVE ALL GUNS FROM RESPECTFUL PEOPLE SO THEY BECOME SHEEPLE AND DEPEND ON THE GOVERNMENT FOR EVERYTHING. That way we won’t be able to defend ourselves from the king of the U.S. and his massive legion of subjects or muslim terrorists that want us dead.

    12. The gun control leftist do not want a dialogue. They want to rant and apply blame. I have never fired a weapon at anyone, yet the fact is that I do own guns. Yes, if needed I can and will do so if it is needed. My left leaning associates are sure that I am personally responsible for all gun crime. I should be able to give them the answer they want. I can’t, because all they can say is that guns are evil and so am I. Evil by association. It seems that attacking an innocent person is certainly ok. My point to them is this: I have never tried to get them to change their opinions, why is it ok to Target me? Because I own a gun. You can not use logic when they are on an anti-gun rant. my advice is to be patient, and be nice, they will eventually get tired of wasting their time and mine.

      1. Fact is…a lot of these people ARE stupid. It isn’t ignorance. Common sense dictates that taking guns out of law abiding peoples hands isn’t going to affect ANYTHING, other then possibly making some “law abiding” people criminals because of their insistence to keep the prohibited gun. COMMON SENSE is what is missing. Apparently the loss there of caused by too much fluoride or who knows what else.

        1. Just like the German citizens of 30’s Germany, most Americans are brainwashed into believing ‘gun control’ will stop the next mass shooting. They are devoid of all logic when you explain it won’t make a difference and no new laws would have prevented the last one.

          I always like the bumper sticker – Ted Kennedy’s car has killed more people than my gun.

      2. EEeeek! I do not have a gun. I do not want a gun. I have never shot a gun. I don’t know anything about guns. Except that everything I hear about guns in the media TERRIFIES me! They should all be turned in and melted down into a peace statue of great heroes like Marx, Lenin, Mao, Ho, and Fidel, all of whom knew that to remove the terror of guns, the guns themselves must be removed. And why do people think that they need a HIGH POWER ASSAULT RIFLE? Isn’t an ordinary gun adequate to kill Bambi and put meat on the hunter’s table?

        1. And why do YOU think you need HIGH SPEED INTERNET? Isn’t any ordinary typewriter adequate to get your (pointless, clueless and ignorant) opinions across? P.S. Next flight to Canada departs in 10 minutes. You won’t be missed. Buh-bye!

        2. I got ya bud :), thanks for the lesson in extreme sarcasm. Read it 1 1/2 times and started laughing when I lumped it in with your others. Keep them coming.

        3. Well whoopee for you! Just remember this ” I … PROMISE … out of your fear of firearms, that there are many here who would not stop to help you if you were being beaten and robbed. After all we would want to tread on your beliefs because we are armed.” We’ll let the Po-po’s get there to clean up the blood and do an investigation.
          By the by dork, research how many people Lenin, Mao, Ho, Fidel killed to get their Communist Governments in firm power. By your writings you are a Domestic enemy of freedom and our Constitution – therefore my enemy. I shall look for you on the field in the coming conflict. Oops I forgot, you don’t have any honor, so you won’t be there in the fight, you’ll probably be making motivational posters and baking cupcakes.

    13. The second amendment was created as a last resort people have to resist tyranny . The framers knew a day would come that the government would try to take away rights. In a brilliant and well thought out document such as the United Stated Constitution , they would never give the government the upper hand and let them regulate the weapons the people would have to fight them with. In other words they weren’t that stupid to let one side get to choose which weapons the other side gets to use . As long as we have corrupt and immoral people in politics we need a second amendment . I feel for the loss people suffered in crimes but it dwarfs the number of people that lost their lives at the hands of their own governments throughout history .

      1. Yea, that good ol’ Constitution has done such a great job of protecting rights. And as for the second amendment…well…seems like that has been amended by proxy too. Last time I looked slavery is defined as the taking of the fruit of ones labor by force. But hey, the “income tax” isn’t slavery, is it? Being pretty much forced to use FIAT currency backed by NOTHING that devalues by the hour isn’t slavery is it? Being told at gun point what we can smoke, eat or drink isn’t slavery is it? Being told we have to ask permission to drive and pay for a license to do so, that isn’t slavery is it? The right to TRAVEL is hindered by those onerous laws made to enrich the state, they are NOT for our protection. How would I know that? Just look at the IDIOTS texting while driving and using cell phones while driving.

        The NEW Second Amendment of the amended US Bill of Rights… (sorry, we no longer follow “proper procedure” for amending these pain in the rear listed rights)
        A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed EXCEPT:
        You are buying the firearms for yourself.
        EXCEPT: you want to open a gun store within 500 feet of a residential area.
        EXCEPT: you are carrying within 1000 feet of a school.
        EXCEPT: you are under indictment or information for a felony for which the judge could imprison you for more then one year.
        EXCEPT: you have been convicted of a felony or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more then one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation.
        EXCEPT: you are a fugitive from “justice”
        EXCEPT: you are an “unlawful” user of or addicted to marijuana or any depressant,stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance.
        EXCEPT: you have ever been “adjudicated” mentally defective or you have ever been committed to a mental institution.
        EXCEPT: you were dishonorably discharged from the armed forces.
        EXCEPT: you are subject to a restraining order restraining you from harassing, stalking or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner.
        EXCEPT: you have been convicted in a court of a MISDEMEANOR crime of domestic violence.
        EXCEPT: you have ever renounced your “United States” citizenship
        EXCEPT: you are an illegal alien
        EXCEPT: the firearm fires more then one round with the pull of the trigger
        EXCEPT: the firearms doesn’t have a vertical grip attached if it is a pistol
        EXCEPT: the barrel on a shotgun is not shorter then 18″
        EXCEPT: for sound suppressors
        EXCEPT: the rifle has a barrel no shorter then 16″. (It used to be 18″, but we accidentally sold some 16″ carbines to the public so we had to fix this and so we shortened the length to 16″ to cover our screw up.)
        EXCEPT: if it is a pistol there is no shoulder stock attached.
        EXCEPT: you carry it concealed, with a permit, which of course we issue and charge you for.
        EXCEPT: it has a magazine that can contain more then 10 rounds
        EXCEPT: the magazine is removable
        EXCEPT: it is black and looks scary
        EXCEPT EXCEPT EXCEPT…stay tuned for updated version. We the psychopaths who own you have now concluded that this new 2nd amendment is in force and effect and that you have no rights guaranteed by ANYTHING UNLESS you are in the “big club” which of course you are NOT. So screw your rights. We are in control of your television set, your phone, your computer, your air, your water and especially your pretend rights. Oh, and by the way, just in case you are wondering…we have ENFORCERS for this who are willing to shoot your children in the back, your wife in the head, burn down your church with 17 children inside just in case you think we are kidding.
        One other thing…none of these exceptions apply to us. We are allowed to have whatever we want to kill you and maim you any time we want for whatever excuse we want. Just take a look at some of the wonderful things WE get to have by looking up Dillon Aero on YouTube.

      2. The second amendment has been misinterpreted as an individual right. Actually, it is intended as a COLLECTIVE right. The state is the custodian of that liberty and holds the right in the name of the people. Once we get the legal establishment to accept this fact, the idea can be extended to other rights as specified in the first, fourth, and fifth amendments.

        The third amendment needs to be repealed because some farmers have ugly daughters.

        1. Ignorance shrouded, once again and parading itself as someone who knows what they’re talking about. Simply amazing.

          Heller affirmed the individual right. I affirm you’re a pain in the ass troll.

        2. What part of THE PEOPLE is collective? The PEOPLE make up the state; the state does not make up the people. How old are you; twelve?

        3. Dude – you’re a straight up booger eating moron. As was said, Heller affirms the right to keep and bear arms as a INDIVIDUAL RIGHT (I made that all caps for your edification). Anyone with half a brain knows that the Founder’s viewed all rights as individual rights, so when they said People they meant individual Americans – you know … SOVEREIGN CITIZENS! So tuck this back in your memory banks some where – Freemen DO NOT ASK PERMISSION TO BEAR ARMS. – Said by Thomas Jefferson. They never thought about rights being collective, if that were the case they would’ve never rebelled against England and we’d still all be subjects of those stuffed shirts.

    14. A fair and reasonable article from the Washington Post? Glory be! Not bad at all. Then I started reading the libtard comments and went blind for several days.

    15. I invite all Soros/Bloomberg/clintoon minions to come on down to the ranch, where we can discuss the issues with emotional one liners, over a nice hemp rope… I mean tea!

    16. While questioning techniques are often useful for a dialog, don’t expect to use them to win this debate. They can win a rational disagreement, but the “gun control” issue is decidedly NOT a rational debate. It depends completely upon emotional vulnerability because none of the facts (as you’d bring out in your questions) relate in the least to what the Bloomberg minions are trying to accomplish.

      The agenda is clear: Disarm the American People and prevent the individual’s ability to defend themselves in all types of conflict, be they criminal or some form of civil unrest.

      The press is explicitly used to manipulate the public’s emotions to the point of creating a nationwide case of emotionally fueled Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (mass PTSD). In this emotionally vulnerable state, politicians will act against the will and the benefit of a free people. They have done it time and again, and must be held accountable.

      The most important message to send after these incidents is that “We will not compromise”. It’s for the right reasons, in fact every right reason. Eventually the mass PTSD will subside, and more rational heads can prevail. Until then, the answer must be “NO”!

    Leave a Comment 80 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *