How Second Amendment Support Comes Across Matters

Supporters of Students for Concealed Carry respond to #Cocksnotglocks protestors.
Supporters of Students for Concealed Carry respond to #Cocksnotglocks protestors.

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- When you are trying to generate more support for a pro-Second Amendment candidate or piece of legislation, going out to the media is part of the process. However, all too often, the media appearances go downhill. We may have the facts, but we lose our cool, or we come across as unreasonable people. As a result, people trying to help defend the Second Amendment end up unintentionally helping Bloomberg.

Let’s face it, the content of the message that we have isn’t all that matters. How that message is delivered also matters.

We can have the facts down pat, but if we deliver them in a way that dismisses the suffering of people who have been victimized by a firearm that has been misused, it won’t matter. They will simply emotionally manipulate our fellow Americans into supporting their anti-freedom agenda.

By the same token, we can be outraged at how Bloomberg, Feinstein, and others seek to take away our rights when we have done nothing wrong. In fact, we have every right to be, since they are in the wrong. But if our righteous outrage comes across as being unhinged, the average person who sees – or reads – the reaction is going to give Bloomberg the benefit of the doubt rather than you.

Furthermore, while someone like Kamala Harris can get away with a pronouncement that semi-automatic firearms do not belong in civil society, the same is not true for Second Amendment supporters. If we just quote the Second Amendment as the total argument against passing a gun law, we can expect a lot of accusatory responses, usually trying to tug emotional heartstrings. That’s the best case in that sort of approach. The worst case will be when the reporter or questioner is a relatively smart anti-gunner and asks you what you’d do to stop a given tragedy.

Look, this may not be what a lot of Second Amendment supporters want to hear, but those are the cold, hard facts that we face when it comes to defending our rights. So, now that this problem has been presented, let’s go over a few of the basics on how we can not only defend the Second Amendment, but do so in a manner that convinces fellow Americans that we’re in the right. There are three things that are important in doing this.

The first thing to keep in mind is to be honest.

Part of this is due to the media bias that is out there, but a lot of it also is because a track record for honesty and integrity still matters. Bloomberg, Cuomo, Feinstein, Schumer, and others will be busy lying about Second Amendment supporters and the issues plenty in 2020. We have the facts on our side, and we’re better than that.

The second consideration is to be informed. In a way, this ties in with being honest.

If you don’t know something, be honest about that and get back to the person who asked. It also means you need to be sure of the facts. This means that when you want to illustrate the desires of anti-Second Amendment politicians to confiscate guns, use stuff that is verified – like Feinstein’s “Mr. and Mrs. America” comment, not an alleged 1993 memo from HCI of dubious proposition. Don’t go for a dubious quote from Sarah Brady about creating a “socialist America,” instead use the verified ones from her and other anti-Second Amendment extremists. If you have a question about such a quote, contact the NRA, SAF, or some other pro-Second Amendment organization and ask. If you come across as knowledgeable on Second Amendment issues, people will be more likely to come to you. They will also trust you – and it will be to your benefit to make sure that they never feel that trust is misplaced.

The third thing is to also be considerate.

This is also probably the hardest thing to do, and understandably so. Anti-Second Amendment extremist politicians constantly slander Second Amendment supporters with labels like “domestic terrorist” and “child killer” in the media. You’re pretty much an accessory to any mass shooting just because you object to a radical agenda of gun confiscation. But you need to keep your cool, especially when talking with the media, or with people unsure about Second Amendment issues.

Blowing off steam might feel good in the moment, but it can do long-term harm. Keeping your cool, on the other hand, and being polite, considerate, and in control not only will leave people more willing to listen to what you have to say, but it also leaves the impression that the likes of Bloomberg are lying about Second Amendment supporters.

When anti-Second Amendment extremists are trying to paint Second Amendment supporters in the worst light possible, it never hurts to put the lie to that image. While it may not be an easy thing to do, the right delivery of a pro-Second Amendment message can pay huge dividends.


Harold Hu, chison

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.

  • 109 thoughts on “How Second Amendment Support Comes Across Matters

    1. There are more than 2 million people permanently injured every year in automibile accidents annually, with roughly 33000 people killed, nearly 88,000 people killed annually due to alcohol related deaths. Yet these not protected by the constitution and nobody moving to ban these items, what makes firearms worse? Let’s face it this is a stunt for people wanting to feel they can try to make a difference picking and choosing. http://www.py2a.org we are wanting to bring all firearms groups together to protect our rights.

    2. Everything I seem to read by this FUDD is aimed at getting us to compromise, apologize and let ourselves get pushed around by gun grabbers. I learned a long time ago all compromise on gun rights is one-sided against us. NO MORE COMPROMISE! Being sweet and “reasonable” will get us NOWHERE. Time to stand for our constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Don’t listen to this idiot.

    3. When we negotiate our 2nd Amendment rights, we are also negotiating our Constitution
      and therefore our Freedom. That, my friends is another step to a Socialist Government.

    4. There are no real Pro-Gun on the Left. You are a very confused and twisted person if you believe this about yourself. No one should tell you what you are. You need to take more time to think what is about to really happen in this country if you allow yourself this gun control fear to continue. 1930’s and 40’s all over again. Think that’s a joke?
      And YOU will have helped create it.

      1. Amen. No compromise. The Second Amendment doesn’t “give” us the right to defend ourselves and our families and fellow citizens against threats by any means necessary; it simply states that this right is inherent to the human condition. Or put another way, this right comes directly from God.

        Ron Paul, in one of his books, stated a profound truth: compromise is often defined incorrectly by society as some noble thing rather than the terrible thing it really is. You should never compromise your principles. We’re not discussing what to have for breakfast here; we’re discussing core foundational principles of a free society and what makes this society different from a failed socialist one.

        We should never compromise our principles for anyone, much less for dishonest people with an anti-freedom agenda who actively reject knowledge about defensive weapons.

    5. “….deliver them in a way that dismisses the suffering of people who have been victimized by a firearm that had been misused ..” The Deodand Concept was ( even ) repealed in England in 1846 . Those “victimized ” were done so by a person, not the device that they used .

    6. Being honest includes letting the left know (nicely) that any attempt to confiscate firearms will result in a bloodbath that they and their ilk will not likely survive. Anything else is disingenuous and likely futile.

        1. Problem with this question is compromise works both ways. At this point we are already infringed upon, for instance with onerous restrictions and a near-ban on automatic weapons, 922r compliance, background check system, ect. The only thing that is ever offered is more and more gun control. We never gain anything.
          So an example of compromise I MIGHT be willing to accept is federal permitting for concealed carry reciprocity. You get your permitting, I get my reciprocity. That’s an example of a big IF on my part. But Democrats never offer actual compromise.

        2. There’s a great cartoon called “cake and compromise” over at Every Day No Days Off, that illustrates the nearly 100 years of the type of “compromise” gun owners have been subject to.

          While a regular compromise typically results in both sides gaining something, what we’ve been subject to has been “surrender the portion of your Rights that we want, right now, regardless of actual evidence, and we’ll leave the rest of your Right alone… Until we decide we won’t”.

          We can exercise our 2A Right in a fraction of the ways we could in 1919. What more should we surrender, for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren, and for what promise that will never be honored by a side willing to use “any means necessary” to achieve their goals?

        3. The left’s idea of compromise is that when they put their finger in your chest you back up toward the edge of the cliff.

        4. This is where negotiating has gotten Negotiating Rights Away since 1934.

          History
          1791: The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified.
          The amendment reads:

          “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
          the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

          After That
          1871: The National Rifle Association was formed by Union Army veterans Col. William C. Church
          and Gen. George Wingate.

          After that, they start going the other way

          The NRA actively supported the National Firearms Act of 1934.
          The NRA actively supported the Federal Firearms Act of 1938
          The NRA actively supported the Gun Control Act of 1968
          The NRA actively supported the misnamed Firearms Owners Protection Act including the Hughes Amendment (1986)
          The NRA actively supported the final version of the Assault Weapons Ban (1994)
          The NRA _proposed_ the bump stock ban
          The NRA is actively supporting “Red Flag” laws at the state and federal level.

          No Negotiating,No Compromise.

    7. I am one of “those” this article talks about. I don’t have a problem with guns or the 2bd amendment. What I have a problem with is the killing of people, especially large groups of people, and gun-rights activists can only come up with “well,we need more guns”. Not a reasonable solution. To make your case to those of us in the “a little left of center” help come up with a reasonable solution. Something that doesn’t have all of us walking around waiting, watchyeach other with fear, hoping that person standing beside you doesn’t decide to go all mass killer, which is what many of us who don’t own guns fear happening.

      1. Not a reasonable solution??
        What do you propose when some zombie decides to “…go all mass killer”?
        Run? where to, are you fast, abled. can you even get out?
        Hide? where, do you want to get shot in a closet? will your child remain silent?
        Fight? that’s a good one… with what?

        Look, I don’t care what you do, just stay out of the way of people who know how to respond in an emergency and have the courage to do so. And that is most emphatically not cops, they aren’t there, they ain’t coming.
        G-d steady my hand.

      2. I understand and respect your opinion. One solution is that those who chose to carry step up when the need arises. Sure you carry but what good does it do if you let others die? We’re all in this together, help protect your family and neighbors.
        A good man with a gun, stops a bad guy with a gun!

        1. Good Samaritan laws generally won’t provide you with legal protection even if you correctly analyse an event, identify the bad guy and don’t shoot anyone else. God help you if you make any mistakes, even something less than accidentally shooting the wrong person. Need to ask yourself whether you’re ready to go to prison for doing the right thing.
          I personally would not step up unless family and/or friend were attacked or in a clear case were children were actively being assaulted. Anything short of that, I’d stay back after calling 911 – as I’ve done before.

          1. Good Samaritan laws do not apply in such events. All states that have laws regarding the use of deadly force extend the right to protect the lives of any innocent person/people in jeopardy. While you as a private citizen have no duty to defend the lives of others it’s not illegal. The good Samaritan laws shield you from criminal prosecution when you with faith and intent attempt to come to the aid of another person that you have a reasonable believe is in jeopardy but you’re actions end up causing harm or resulted in no relief to the out come. Most people have empty for other people in distress or jeopardy and will almost always attempt to render some type of aid to a victim(s) in an emergency.

      3. Katherine,
        I appreciate your reasonable request. We can wish away all guns, all violence, all greed, all hunger for dominance over another or others. That would be a heavenly realm but the cold reality of human existence and history intrudes. As we have a world awash in illegal drugs (even in China where drug dealing is a capital offense and dealers are executed), we will always have illegal weapons where firearms are illegal (witness Great Britain where private ownership of firearms is prohibited yet gun crimes continue to rise and murders with knives increase every year). Criminals, by definition, violate the law. Where criminals are the only ones with firearms, violating restrictive firearms laws, there are many more firearms crimes and helpless victims. In states where the gun laws are less strict and carried more often, there are fewer gun crimes because the criminals can’t predict who might be armed and who can fight back. Mass killings with firearms are horrible tragedies. Yet when there are armed police or armed citizens present, it tends to deter the incident altogether (it is a fact that 97% of all mass murders in the last 20 years are committed in “gun-free zones”–Lott, 2018), limit the carnage and, sometimes will stop it completely. After Israel suffered two school massacres, they armed and secured their schools and there have been no attacks to their schools since. The State of Utah permitted their teachers to carry concealed pistols more than a decade ago, resulting in NO school shootings in the state. Bottom line: I am a law abiding citizen and cannot fathom shooting another person except in defense of life (and I pray I am never forced to). As we have laws against shooting and murdering people, those who would do that for gain (armed robbery) or mayhem and infamy (mass murders), the crime of possessing of an illegal gun is negligible compared to taking life. Fearing lawfully armed citizens is about your perception rather than fact. Statistically, those who lawfully carry a handgun are far less likely to commit a crime than than the average person. You are literally safer with people who are legally armed than with a crowd of people who abhor firearms and advocate for disarming and confiscating all weapons. Those who are armed are generally willing to stand tall and protect those who refuse to take responsibility for their own safety because we recognize that responsibility and carry concealed to have the capacity to protect ourselves and those who cannot. Fear the criminal, not the upright who walk the talk of freedom. I appreciate that you don’t wish to own or use a firearm. Please recognize that the non-criminal gun-owner is not a threat but an asset to your safety, and please don’t vote for worthless restrictions on the legal possession of firearms that represent wishful thinking rather sound public safety strategy.

      4. Thank-you Katherine for your point of view. I considered myself to be a “Centralist”. I support our right to own a gun, but it comes with responsibilities. ERPO, Bad Guy with a Gun gets incarcerated, I do not care what it is called. I support that as well. If I see a situation where others lives or mine is in eminent danger, they get a 911 invitation to speak to a LEO. If need be, I will be happy to introduce myself to the perp and others in a jury.

      5. @Katherine Garrison, is too lazy to protect herself, and too energetic about diminishing my Right to protect myself and my family. Decide for your family, kg, but don’t try to impose your definition of what is reasonable on us. I know the people that stand beside me, and we are not subordinate to you or your thinking.

        1. Wild,
          Predictable that you have no clue if she is able to ‘protect herself’. She voices her right to bring Americans their right bear arms, and those that do not own arms to band together for safer communities. I suggest you tone down the ignorance and work in a positive and productive manner for the protection of our gun rights. The GWD.

      6. Katherine, WE have a problem with the killing of people also. So trust me, you want myself and 99% of those here (the other 1% are trolls) standing next to you when things go south. We fear them just as much as you do, the only difference is we know how to deal with them. Swiftly, and decisively.

      7. @Katherine

        I thought murder was against the law,that law didn’t stop the killers you refer to.

      8. There absolutely is no such thing as a common sense or reasonable violation of your civil rights. The members of all levels of Government that are attempting to destroy the 2A are some of the most vile and despicable people society has ever produced. All people elected to the House and Senate sware the oath to do just the opposite. Violence in America today is not gun violence, it is violence committed by deranged and violent criminals. The Founders crafted the 2A to enable Americans to defend against exactly that. People today have been conditioned to believe that Government is the solution to all problems in life through social engineering. As an American citizen you are the one that is supposed to be in charge of your life and the one primarily responsible for protecting it, not Government. The Police can’t help you in the moment. By the time the arrive the damage is done. Common sense should make that obvious. All Americans have a geruntied right to keep and bear arms of the times to defend themselves and community against such threats. They also have the responsibility to do so. If your actually so foolish to believe that you can outsource the protection of the most pressious thing you own (your life) to a Government agencies, God help you. If your such the coward you refuse to learn the nessisaery skills to defend yourself and go the next step to put pressure on Government to openly violate the Bill of Rights so as to restrict or prohibit all Americans from doing so you are a childish idiot. Do you expect the Government to teach you how to swim too?Rights are not laws. Rights do not come from Government. Americans are born with the 10 basic Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. That is that. These RIGHTS are not open to interpretation by any Court or members of Government. There is nothing in them that allows this. If your so foolish to actually believe that giving up your security to Government to gain your safety you’ll end up with nither. B.Franklin is the author of that statement. As is true today as it was in his time. I don’t want to hear about made up statistics on gun violence, it’s all bullshit crafted by scoundrels to miss lead idiots. If you don’t have the sand to protect yourself and think the Government will, that’s up to you. Don’t be so full of yourself that you can force me to be as foolish as you are.

      9. So, Katherine, you state a hypothesis, “Not a reasonable solution.”, without any support for said hypothesis. How about stating why or how it is not reasonable. You are like most liberals and throw out emotion based ideas and then want conservative to come up with a logic based answer to your irrational fears. Oil and water. But then you are what you are and I do not expect more from you. And so I dismiss your complaint out of hand.

      10. Katherine;
        First, thank you for entering this conversation with a polite tone. Not sure how you found us but we are generally in accord when it comes to one part of the 2A and that the second amendment elucidates not confers what God gives to every human being. That is an important thing to keep in mind when you suggest we propose a solution. Ask yourself what is the most basic right YOU have and how you would respond if told you needed to consider what limits you were willing to put on said right; because I believe that is what we hear. I appreciate your genuine interest in finding a common solution to a difficult situation but I also believe the “Left of center” fails to understand that we aren’t the problem, many times we are the solution but mainstream media doesn’t want to share that information. The problem lies (in my opinion) with deteriorating moral standards and increasing narcissism. One needs only look at England to see that placing the blame on firearms while ignoring the underlying issues has only exacerbated the situation. Finally, we have solution; carry. I KNOW that is exactly the opposite from what you wanted to hear but the truth is, none of us know when another person is going to do something that puts your life in danger. If you want to put your life in the hands of law enforcement (great folks with good intentions) go ahead but they will be the first to tell you that whatever is going on will be over by the time they get there. If you want to run God bless you and good luck, I’m to old to. The bottom line is, we appreciate your concern for the common good and share that concern. We appreciate your considerate tone and reasonable attitude. Please understand that a solution to the mental health issues of our nation will not be found in more restrictions to what God has granted us.

      11. Katherine, here’s the flaw in this logic. Eventually, we end up here;
        https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-01/totalitarianism-buying-hammer-now-makes-you-terrorist-uk
        If you are truly in “Fear,” then arm yourself. In fact, the most obvious answer is to “Arm Everyone.” Often left out of the conversation is the fact that all of the largest mass murders are committed by governments against unarmed populations, period! It’s an inconvenient fact, but a fact just the same.

        Best thing to do is quit buying into the victimology your government is selling you and step up for your own safety and freedom.

      12. Katherine Garrison, we all have an issue with people breaking the law. Murder is already illegal, by any method, hence so is “mass murder”. Taking my firearms from me or creating onerous and costly laws that infringe on my rights will not make you safer.

        If you live in fear of the unknown (worrying about the person standing next to you), you need to take control of your life, so as to not live in fear. Learning how to protect yourself, armed or unarmed, will help you understand and overcome your fears. Stating you are afraid of law-abiding citizens is insane. It would appear based on that, you should be afraid of yourself, and we you.

        Here is a quote about Paradise. You might not like who the quote is attributed to, but it is fitting.
        “…paradise would be a place where everybody has guaranteed employment, free comprehensive healthcare, free education, free food, free housing, free clothing, free utilities, and only law enforcement has guns. And believe it or not, such a place does, indeed, exist. It’s called prison.” – Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff

      13. Disagree with your statement that pro gun-rights only want “well, we need more guns” to stop shootings. We have suggested that the current gun laws be enforced first before piling on knee-jerk gun laws or legislation that makes the law abiding gun owner a criminal if they now own banned components, restricted guns etc. How about law enforcement following up on credible threats on social media when it’s reported to them? Many of the these POS shooters made credible threats on social media that no one bothered to look into so the anti-gun mantra is to ban the guns or components? Many of these POS were previously known to or reported to the FBI, police, school officials or medical personnel, yet nothing? No more compromises.

        Second Amendment
        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    8. The time to be polite is coming to an end. Many circuit court judges have allowed a number of unconstitutional laws across the West Coast, and East Coast States. It’s all tied to the DNC and their globalist financiers. According to Article VI: Supremacy Clause within the US Constitution: we de-fund, disbar, and deregulate, all unconstitutional legislation, regulation, and individuals “not in good standing with the US Constitution.” (Article VI is Supreme Law of the Land over ALL US territories, protecting ALL US citizens, above the POTUS, Supreme Court, Governors, State Constitutions, and all Inferior Courts all the way down to the Locales. And yes this blankets all business/corporate entity activity within the US also. Frankly Article VI is supreme law, and it’s currently being violated. US citizens have compromised for so long, it’s time to stop compromising and take the fight to the politicians offices in a show of force. We also need to get the POTUS to enforce Article VI, and the Supreme Court to reverse all unconstitutional laws in the lower courts. There is no arguing the matter: if a right is violated within the Bill of Rights, it’s unconstitutional and needs to be abolished. The leadership behind these laws and regulations need to be de-funded and removed from office, and disbarred. End of story. It would be wonderful to get everyone back on board with Article VI but I’m not seeing it happen, and the only alternative is for the roughly 52%+ pro constitution population of the US, some 300,000,000 gun owners to start taking a more offensive approach. Being polite for the past 85 years since NFA was passed in 1934 has done zero to defend our constitutional rights: it’s time to demand our rights until we regain them.

      1. @Core, being polite is a good cover. As to your last sentence, being polite alone never has been a defense.

      2. I don’t believe there are 300,000,000 gun owners. I have heard that as the number of guns, but the average gun owner has more than one. I think the number of gun owners is far less and a distinct minority of citizens.

        1. So tyranny is OK, as long as the majority approves it?

          A quick question for Kableemo if I may – under current law, who is responsible for our protection as regular individuals?

        2. That may very well be; but, every one of the people that I know personally, and that’s more than a few, owns at least one gun. Of course this is the most conservative city in the most conservative county in one of the most conservative States in the nation.

        3. And that is the reason for constitutional rights.
          The 2nd amendment does not grant the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms.
          The 2nd amendment keeps the government from withholding a right from its people, whether they are a minority or majority.

    9. If you are to argue in support of the constitution, I would recommend taking the time to read and understand the Federalist Papers. What was being discussed during the writing of the document tells us the reasons for what ended up being written. A key example is article 84 of the Papers. Written by Alexander Hamilton during discussions of the Bill of Rights, Hamilton states that he was opposed to the Bill of Rights. His reasons were that the rights being discussed were inherent and God-given and therefore could not be denied or infringed on by the government. He further notes that the reason is that the Constitution does not give permission to the government to take those rights away and therefore the Bill of Rights was not needed. His concern was that by putting the rights specifically in the Constitution, it may infer that the government can alter those rights which is completely denied by the Constitution. Bt what we are seeing taking place today, we can see the brilliance of Hamilton and the other writers of our well thought out Constitution. Shame on our judges and politicians for desecrating it thw way they are.

    10. I think we just need to make it plain that we will no longer tolerate any more assaults on our Second Amendment I’ve already stopped talking with many e an antique gun person including family members and I call them traitors end of story I’m not going to be considerate and I’m not going to be emotionally attached I’m sorry these horrible things happen but horrible things happen in life and maybe just maybe if people were actually doing their jobs the mass shootings that have happened probably wouldn’t have happened I think they’ve been allowed to happen just for this kind of thing to begin

    11. This argument is ALSO a billion dollar a year industry for both pro and anti 2nd Amend. Pro 2nd Amend stop begging for money, stop wasting billions an making lawyers millionaires,while nothing is changing for the positive on the 2nd. Let he SOCILAIST have there day, the country is heading toward a blood letting by the left. Let it happen, let them take away all guns rights, outlaw everything, IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. No patriot shall give their weapons up,were the lll%ers, VETERANS, MILITIAS and TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOTS. NO POLICE OF FEDERAL AGENCY THAT FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION SHALL COME AND TAKE OUR ARMS. THOSE that DO COME TO TAKE THEM ARE NOT AMERICANS. Allow the LINE IN THE SAND TO BE CROSSED BY THE LEFT. CIVIL WAR IS UPON US, and the only way to TRULY END THIS, IS WITH VIOLENCE, AS THE LEFT DESIRES, ANTIFA, BLM,ISLAMIC SCUM, THIS IS WHAT THE LEFT WANTS, GIVE IT TO THEM, PURGE THE ANTI AMERICAN, SOCILAIST,MARXIST LEFT. THEY ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN ISIS, THEY ARE, BY THEIR OWN CHOSE ENEMIES OF GOD, THE CONSTITUTION AND OUR WAY OF LIFE.

      1. The screaming capitals, the talk of civil war and the singling out of particular religious views as unamerican is just the kind of frothing belligerence this article warns 2A supporters against.

        The author is right. This behavior is going to marginalize your views in the eyes of the American public. What your reply demonstrates is that you’re not capable of adopting the necessary composure to inure people to your arguments.

        If the point of the 2nd amendment was to allow for the overthrow a tyrannical government, then you should be arguing for access to tactical nukes and nerve agents, since those are the table stakes for that game. Of course, i’m joking here. That is plain crazy. I only mention it to point out the absurdity of a position that attempts to argue for access to semi automatic weapons as the thing that addresses the intent of the 2A.

        In truth, I only stumbled on this article as a result of Google’s naive assumption that because I practice archery, I’d be interested in defending the rabid stanes we see in the comments and most likely the replies to this comment.

        I’m at least gratified that your inability to suppress your violently reactionary views will keep you from winning broad support.

        1. Bertrand Russell gets it. ^^
          No one is coming to take your guns. And the civil war talk makes you sound.nuts.

          1. No one is coming to take your guns? Tell that to Randy Weaver’s wife. Tell that to all the dead children killed in Waco. Tell that to Gary Willis. Tell that to all the victims of the Democrat KKK over the years. Tell that to all the Japanese-Americans locked away and stripped of their rights during WWII. Tell that to all the victims of violence who were denied their God-given Constitutional Rights to defend themselves in Democrat-controlled urban hellholes. Tell that to the Warsaw ghetto Jews. Tell that to all those killed in Pol Pot’s Killing Fields. Tell that to the millions of Jews, Gypsies and other “undesirables” killed in Hitler’s National SOCIALIST concentration camps. Tell that to the millions who were killed in Stalin’s forced labor gulags.

            “… the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” ~ Hubert H. Humphrey

            1. You can’t converse / articulate common sense or logic with these people their mindset is in step with the rest of the communist Muslim extremeist types they have their “agenda”“and of course as Americans /“we the people “”have ours

          2. “No one is coming to take your guns” – a slogan offered to conceal the fact that erudite cosmopolitan intellectuals have been making exactly that suggestion on record for decades, while simultaneously mocking the intelligence, education, masculinity, mental stability, sophistication and genetic lineage of anyone who dares offer a dissenting opinion, or actually defends the concept of the 2nd as an individual Right.

            Would they achieve their goal through a door – to – door search, like Hideyoshi’s Katanagari (sword hunt) of 1588 Japan? Not at first. They’d pass laws, then offer rewards for information about now criminal gun owners. They’d add gun ownership as an “immediate threat”, allowing child protection agencies to seize custody of children, and require reporting by teachers and other “mandated reporters”. The door kicking SWAT stuff wouldn’t come until later, and while it would likely be bloody, the media would be certain to bill the gun owner as the crazed criminal, even if there was no trace of criminal behavior apart from the guns.

            And those erudite intellectuals? They would be the ones being shot at – dying is for the police, who are only worth considering favorably when they’re acting to enforce laws those erudite intellectuals support.

        2. This was a perfect illustration of the argument this article is trying to warn pro gun activists not to make. I’m going to be blatantly honest here. I don’t own a gun. I never thought I was a good fit for such a weapon. I tend to be impulsive, I have terrible aim, and unlike many gun owners, I don’t have a first hand understanding and respect for how easily life can be taken with a gun. Having said that, i see no reason for anyone else to be penalized simply because I don’t want one. The problem with this argument is it comes across as combative, threatening, and not least of all, crazy. If I had never met a responsible gun owner, this would be enough to make me question their existence.
          When you present an argument, you have to remember that it’s not just about being right; it’s about being heard, and that means forming your argument in a way that others can hear you and thoughtfully process what you’re saying. “If more people had been armed x wouldn’t have happened…” Is just as nonsensical as, ” if guns were banned x wouldn’t have happened…” X happened. The end. You can’t base an argument on preventing an event that cannot be changed. No one knows what would’ve happened on either side. The more important question is whether or not we are talking about sacrificing a right for a completely unknown outcome because a right sacrificed creates a precedent, and it’s something its not easy to take back. If one right can be sacrificed so easily, what about this one or that one? That is the real danger.

          1. Deena, as far as more people carrying guns it is not about “preventing” something from happening, it is about mitigating the damage from that occurrence. We have fire extinguishers in our kitchens and our vehicles not to prevent a fire but to manage or hopefully put out a fire should one occur. I have found the most effective way to bring people over to a pro-gun position is to figuratively put them in situation where they are benefitted by the presence of a firearm in their possession. Most young women will say that they could never shoot someone. I have found that their response changes when they have children. That is but one example of what I am talking about.

        3. No Forler get’s it. All CAPS or not our government has stopped listening to the people. Our Election system is a fraud. Our justice system corrupt. If our Founding Fathers were alive today they would be shooting by now.

      2. The groups of militia that needs to be feared are the quiet, very organized and disciplined ones. They will do very precise and small attacks on liberal politicians, businessmen who fund the liberals and judges who ignore the Constitution. When it happens that way, they will be hard to catch and will have a great impact. I hope that never occurs as it would become the start of a much bigger situation but if the SCOTUS does not stop this assault on the Bill of Rights then I can see this happening.

        1. The thing that Governments fear most is the lone wolf. Next in line would be an organization that consists of very small cells that act on instructions requiring no direct contact. This has been true throughout world history. The Las Vegas shooter was a lone wolf.

      3. The ultimate backstop for our rights is that a vast majority of gun owners will not comply with a law or regulation that bans or requires turning in guns or confiscation. And a vast majority of Americans will not stand for law enforcement coming to their homes or gathering places to kill them and take their guns. That is as long as the gun owners meet some minimum standard of appearing to be reasonable, peaceful people that were not criminals until a law/regulation overturned an enumerated constitutional right.

        However a majority may well avert their eyes if law enforcement come to seize guns and kill people expressing the views above and a willingness or even eagerness to engage in violent conflict. Essentially, majority support will always go to whichever side appears least willing to use violence.

        To keep our rights strongly intact in coming generations will require appearing extremely reasonable and non-threatening. (And really, why wouldn’t a person want to be reasonable and non threatening?) That and growing the proportion of the population participating in shooting sports. Demographic trends look terrible for gun rights and we have to bend the curve on that.

        And consider that I am a strong gun rights supporter but belong to more than one of the groups you propose to purge and seem somewhat eager to let blood from. Purging and bloodletting people who are In agreement on the issue we are discussing will certainly be a losing strategy.

        1. Oh, you mean like ERPO? No cops will participate in taking guns away, and people will be particularly incensed when it does happen? Newsflash-no one but gun owners care what happens to gun owners.

          Being factual and sounding crazy unfortunately are now tied together because the media/leftists have done an excellent job dividing gun owners, while painting those who wont parrot the latest anti-freedom scheme as unreasonable. We cannot win arguments with leftists. They do not care about facts, and never have. Knowing your audience may help you raise consciousness in the few who are kn the fence, but the majority are party line toeing zombies who will simply scream and call you names no matter how articulate you may be.

        2. Kableeno, I will tell you that I will not compromise my rights *guaranteed* by our Constitution. Which of those rights are you willing to compromise on? At what point will their demands on your natural rights be too much?

    12. The right has been playing nice for decades now. How is that working out? This is a bare fisted fight and needs to be fought that way. Not with violence, but with verbal aggression.

    13. Great article! As a pro second amendment progressive who leans left…..I believe it is important to not be insulting to the Democrats and the left, like calling them Snowflakes and so on. It’s absolutely not helping the 2nd Amendment.

      There are a lot of those on the Left who are pro-gun, yes it’s true. Fox News and the NRA misinform this way. You need to gain those supporters on the Ledt, not alienate them by making blanket statements!

      Respect goes a long way. Creating fear does not. Walking around neighborhoods with an AR-15 strapped to your back just creates fear and more resistance against the 2nd Amendment. I feel the same about open carry, I am legal to do it but I prefer to conceal because it gives me a tactical advantage. Open carrying just makes many feel uncomfortable. It’s not a great way to promote the 2nd Amendment.

      Anyway, be respectful and be nice. Help inform rather than being belligerent.

      1. I agree, and thank for your comment. I too strongly believe in our right to bear arms. What we need to do is initiate town hall meetings across our country. As a pro gun American, with common sense priorities, lets get started! I’m up for it! This is what the NRA, GOA and other gun organizations need to do. Educate the public! Work together! Rather than sit on the couch watching football and Saturdays and Sundays! The GWD.

      2. Yes, you are absolutely correct. I’ve thought this for quite some time. Wisdom is better than being in someone’s face.

      3. @Sh, You start out telling us to be respectful, and end by trying to impose your open carry view on everyone else. Nothing could be more disrespectful than substituting your judgment for mine. You prove that you think that you are superior. You defeat your own argument about respect, and reveal yourself as a covert anti-Second Amendment Civil Rights propagandist.

        1. Our best weapon against the leftists is to just let them speak. As it was written, “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh.”

      4. Poster brings to mind so much media attention poured on Russian trolls. Suggestions of violence certainly sound like Russian propaganda efforts. It may instigate violence from some offended young-gun owner, however it is far more effective in convincing gun control advocates of the need for extremism in forwarding their cause. It is imperative that responsible gun rights advocates continue to call out such people and simultaneously drown them out.

      5. I respectfully disagree with your assumptions regarding open carry. While open carry is legal here, I have only noticed anyone doing so twice. In both cases it did not appear that others noticed, much less reacting with fear or concern. One in particular looked like he was on way home from Cowboy Action Shooting, wearing old western dress with large revolver prominently displayed. My wife and children did not notice at all even though we almost bumped into each other in store aisle. People just don’t see what they are not looking for – so descrite pancake holster, partially cover by shirt or coat, might as well be invisible to most.

      6. There are no real Pro-Gun on the Left. You are a very confused and twisted person if you believe this about yourself. No one should tell you what you are. You need to take more time to think what is about to really happen in this country if you allow yourself this gun control fear to continue. 1930’s and 40’s all over again. Think that’s a joke?
        And YOU will have helped create it.

      7. Shad Holland, being armed does not create fear. Being an idiot and a Leftist creates fear when those are the ones in office creating these anti-rights laws that infringe on our Constitutional rights. How far do your natural *guaranteed* rights need to be “compromised” before you are willing to stand against further infringement? Will you then be one of the ones you are arguing about being “unreasonable”?

    14. It is incredibly hard to argue with stupid.
      A perfect example is the border, “walls don’t do anything”.
      The left refuses to listen, they will not change their minds.
      All I do is keep repeating the facts, when I hear the lies.

    15. These so called Government leaders need to be reminded of the most basic requirement of their duties while in office, and sworn to under oath is to protect the Constitution of the U.S. Not to pick and choose which unalienable rights born to us they feel will garner them votes in the next election!

    16. I have NEVER seen anybody do what the author of this article claims, 2nd Amendment Advocates are always the only civil one in the conversation! Not even sure why this article was written, gun rights proponents will be civil right up until Pelosi, Schumer and the rest of their ilk get what they want, which is a disarmed peasantry! Their gun control effort are part of a larger agenda, but because you can’t subjugate an armed populace they know they must disarm us. When they finally get what they want, they will not get what the expected, they get a civil war! Their own congressional voting record will be used in their trial for treason!

        1. Yes, Geary…a civil war of their own making. Problem is, it will dramatically and permanently affect every person in the U.S.A., regardless of political party or affiliation.

          1. @Gary Munn, We have been in a civil war of sorts between liberals and conservatives. We all know that we do not want a war where people draw lines and boundaries with armies defending their ideologies. We tried that once and nothing was solved, and to this day, that spilled blood is still argued.

      1. I don’t think they want a disarmed peasantry. I think they want mass shootings to end. Suppose for a moment that my statement is correct – that they want these shootings to end and nothing more. If you agree that’s a worthy aim, then how would you advise them?

        1. I think on some (many) level(s) you are mistaken. I mean that not in an argumentative way, and I will explain.

          Why does anyone who really cares about human life focus on “assault rifles”? They are used in much fewer numbers for homicides than pistols. Fact. Argument off the table for those guns.

          Pistols are used far more for defense than homicide by even the most conservative numbers, coming to light during a liberal administration. Fact. So saving lives by banning pistols is off the table.

          Prior to 1968 you could have guns shipped straight to your house, including “assault rifles”, yet kids were bringing guns to school for after school activites and mass shootings were basically non-existent. (Hell, even suicide) Fact. So restricting access to firearms has arguably made the problem worse, if you simply look at numbers.

          Society is the problem, and those on the left simply dont want to accept that the policies they have been pushing for decades are the reason for what we see in society today. Incomplete families. No value for human life. Free stuff for no work. Politics that pit classes and races against each other. Society being racist. And so on.

          The answer is not increasing restrictions on weapons that have essentially always been here. Otherwise these problems would have existed since the country was founded, not the last 20-30 years. And all the laws having restricted a God given (or natural if not religious) right would have been less and less necessary.

          Either those pushing gun control are liars, or some nice synonym for idiot. There is no inbetween, because facts, reason, the Constitution and the founding fathers were and are squarely against the left on this topic.

    17. You cannot argue with and hope to win or convince someone using logic and reason when that person is neither logical nor reasonable.

    18. I’m past trying to have a conversation with Leftists who want to take my guns. To these Leftists I say “ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ or GET OFF MY LAWN!”

      You can’t reason with rabid animals, or socialists. And our founding fathers would be shooting already if they were here today!!

    19. Sir words matter, one can not be victimized by a gun! They are victimized by the person using the gun. Your article is fatally flawed.

    20. The Liberal mentality won’t allow ‘civil discussion’ on any topic. Liberals ‘know’ they are ‘right’ and refuse to consider the probability they are not.

    21. People don’t ask questions, they assume. They assume what “regulate” means in “well regulated militia” and their minds are already made up. In fact, they not only assume but they outright ignore. They ignore what “shall not be infringed” means. Harold understands these people to be emotional yet, you can’t have a rational argument with irrational folks. They think only muskets are protected yet use the internet for free speech, unless of course the internet is being used to share 3-d gun blueprints. This is an assault from all angles, they’ve weaponized the 1st Amendment to deny our right to self protection, it’s only when we counter them that the free exercise of speech is hateful. Children mourning children because of the actions of children, they are no less ignorant to the world than the disturbed child who shoots up his/her school.

    22. Mr Hutchison’s comments are right on target. To those who responded with intemperate comments above – you have mistaken the audience for Pro—2A arguments. It isn’t the anti-2A leaders, who you have correctly sized up as immune in most cases to logic, it is the rest of the American voting public. It is the suburban soccer moms and the urban professional and the average voter who may not know much about guns or gun culture but who is fed a distorted image of violent, nut job gun owners – that is the audience whom we can influence. And, for the record, public statements like “shut up and STOP or bleed” simply feed the anti fires. Yes, we have to remain firm and stand against restrictions but we have to do so in a way that doesn’t make us sound like the unreasoning mob and the violence prone caricature that the Left likes to portray. Otherwise we doing their work for them and working against our own common good.

    23. I need my guns to protect myself from things like The Liberals and Fake News. If I don’t like something, I shoot it.

      1. “If I don’t like it I shoot it” is a viable reason why guns are under scrutiny. Why would you think that is a reasonable thing to say? It sounds like a scared, little person’s way of acting like they are brave and big.

        1. Or, True American is your sock account, you wrote that comment and then responded to it to cause little anti-gun controversies. Yeah, I’m going with that.

    24. Excellent article as our 2nd amendment is on the chopping block. A slow, yet effective process that many do not realize that pieces of it are eroding away. To ensure that never happens, pro gun activist must get out in public and present their cause in an educated, yet polite manner to those that don’t agree with you. Present your arguments in a short concise manner.

      1. Hah ! We’ve been civil enough for far too long. It does nothing to the mental disorder of americans who have zero respect for the bill of rights. This author is new to the antigun crowd. Most americans can’t tell the difference between a devil or an angel, yet they all think they are genius dick tracys and every person they meet are criminals. The criminals on the supreme court have illegally given govts the green light to ignore the 2nd A law WHILE gun owners are treated like criminals and terrorists.. AND we’re supposed to be polite ! We should be so angry and have every right to be angry. Antigun americans want America to be like paris france but should want paris france to be like America.

      2. @ GreenWatchDog,
        Polite manner? Sir, A Legally Armed Society is a Polite Society.
        Anti-constitutionalist’s sense of morality is situational, based on incident and emotion, instead of rooted in God’s word and law.
        Anti-constitutionalist’s stand for nothing. The situation determines their support for an issue and their emotions rule, not reason and rationality.
        Moreover, they recognize the contradiction, but still cling to their situational justice. Situational justice is the tool of dictators, tyrants, despots, and unjust, unrighteous monarchs. It has no place in a free constitutional republic. In which the United States of America is……………….
        Seems that you sway in hard left direction, with what you state now, and in previous discussions.

        1. Yes, Geary…a civil war of their own making. Problem is, it will dramatically, permanently and irreversably affect every person in the U.S.A., regardless of political party or affiliation.

        2. @ Robert J. Lucas The GWD is a progressive troll. If he encounters someone that doesn’t agree with him he will call 911 before he gets confronted by them.
          The leftists, progressives or whatever they want to be called do stand for something and that is their right to kill babies while still in the womb or just out of the womb. Of course you have to take a strong look at the woman that allows this and you know it is against God’s law and the laws of this country and most other countries.

      3. Why are all of the anti-gun laws or legislation directed at the law abiding citizen? Why is it knee-jerk gun laws, turn in or get rid of high cap mags, AR-15, components, ammo restrictions cause law abiding citizens to become felons overnight? No more compromises.

        Amendment II
        A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    25. I still haven’t decided if you are just incomprehensibly ignorant or are in fact a left wing operative.

      1. I ascribe Harold’s attitude and advice to simple naivete. He is obviously not ignorant… in fact, he is intelligent and educated. But he has not yet grasped the fact that gun-control advocates do NOT want or intend – they flatly refuse! – to engage in any discussion (much less honest dialogue) with the pro-gun advocates they so vehemently hate. No amount of civility on our part will overcome that etched-in-stone fact.

        Actually, the “right” delivery of a pro-Second Amendment message is to liberal politicians, in the most emphatic and powerful manner humanly possible. Those liberal leaders (who have no more desire to speak to gun-owners than do the rank-and-file liberals) must understand that their only two viable options are to 1) shut the hell up and completely STOP all anti-gun activity, or 2) bleed. End of dialogue… because nothing (nothing!) else will work toward a solution to this country’s firearms issue – under any circumstances, anywhere, any time. Liberals (Marxists, Leftists, socialists, communists, or whatever the hell they call themselves this week) are too damnably rock-stupid to be in any way reasonable. Ever. [Personally, I’m bewildered at the fact that liberals are allowed out in public without keepers.]

        We conservatives must acquaint liberal politicians with the Founders’ formal position regarding the 2nd Amendment… that the Tree of Liberty must, from time to time, be refreshed with the blood of tyrants. (I vaguely remember that they also said something about the blood of Patriots. But, as a Patriot, I much prefer that tyrants do the bleeding, thank you.)

        1. Joe sooner: it’s refreshing to hear one of the good guys take his gloves off, kick some saw dust around and have a shouting spell. For many years now the leftist have been playing the same tricks and strategies. Don’t awnser the question or stay on point. Lie, denigh. Rudely interrupt, never give up the con, boil the frog, divide and conquer. When they are in power run us over like a bull dozier, but when we’re in power we Must meet in the middle of the isle. They are of thier father John 8:44. Unfortunately the only thing bullies, tyrants, and dictators seem to understand is the kind of brutal pressure that made Saddom Hussain hide in a hole in the ground

      2. If you care to look at Harold Hutchison’s other posts you will find he is an apologist for the NRA’s current administration. He ascribes to the “just give the bully your lunch money and don’t say anything, maybe he won’t hurt you this time. I don’t care if he bullies someone else, just as long as it isn’t me.” He’s a coward that is afraid to put up a real fight with possibly painful results. He is an advocate of “Never get into a fight unless you know you are going to win, so even when he’s in the right he will back down from a challenge so he can say he never loses a fight. Just ask him and he will tell you(incorrectly) That without the NRA there would be zero gun rights left in America. There is a reason Governments and law enforcement worldwide refuse to negotiate with kidnappers and other terrorists, Its called “Moral Hazard.” If you pay the ramson and let them get off scot-free, you may have ended that single situation but you have also emboldened them to do it again over and over. Just look at the situations with pirates off the African coast, or the kidnapping going on in Latin America. People are paying those ransoms and the occurrences keep going up. We can’t negotiate with the gun grabbers and expect to win in the long run. We have to be willing to get a black eye and a fat lip defending ourselves. It’s only going to stop when we put a stop to it ourselves. I’m not advocating violence or looking for trouble, but push comes to shove we need to defend our rights by any means necessary.

    Comments are closed.