Gun Rights Advocates have a devastating new argument against gun control

[GrainfedMuley]

thejournal.png
 44K


Gun Rights Advocates Have A Devastating New Argument Against Gun Control. Here It Is.
Written by Kurt Schlichter


 The Journal by IJReview is an opinion platform and any opinions or information put forth by contributors are exclusive to them and do not represent IJReview.


 American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-gun liberals. Here it is, in its entirety. Ready?

“Screw you.” That’s it. Except the first word isn’t “Screw.”

It’s not exactly a traditional argument, but it’s certainly appropriate here. The fact is that there is no point in arguing with liberal gun-control advocates because their argument is never in good faith. They slander gun owners as murderers. They lie about their ultimate aim, which is to ban and confiscate all privately owned weapons. And they adopt a pose of reasonability, yet their position is not susceptible to change because of evidence, facts or law. None of those matter – they already have their conclusion. This has to do with power – their power.

 You can’t argue with someone who is lying about his position or whose position is not based upon reason. You can talk all day about how crime has diminished where concealed carry is allowed, while it flourishes in Democrat blue cities where gun control is tightest. You can point to statistics showing that law-abiding citizens who carry legally are exponentially less likely to commit gun crimes than other people. You can cite examples of armed citizens protecting themselves and their communities with guns. You can offer government statistics showing how the typical American is at many times greater risk of death from an automobile crash, a fall, or poisoning than from murder by gun.

 But none of that matters, because this debate is not about facts. It’s about power. The liberal anti-gun narrative is not aimed at creating the best public policy but at disarming citizens the liberal elite looks down upon – and for whom weapons represent their last-ditch ability to respond to liberal overreach.

 Put simply, liberal elitists don’t like the fact that, at the end of the day, an armed citizenry can tell them, “No.”

So they argue in bad faith, shamelessly lying, libeling their opponents, and hiding their real endgame. Sure, sometimes the mask slips and a liberal politician like Mike Bloomberg or Diane Feinstein reveals their true agenda, but mostly they stay on-message.

 For example, Barack Obama, who always tries to reassure us bitter clingers that he doesn’t want to take our guns, speaks longingly about the Australian plan – which was confiscation of most viable defensive weapons from the civilian population.

 Obama is lying – about gay marriage, about your doctor – and he is likewise lying about guns. The minute he could disarm every American civilian he would, something particularly alarming in light of his pal Bill Ayers’ infamous observation that ‘fundamentally transforming’ America would require killing at least 25 million citizens.

 No wonder free Americans are done pretending the gun argument is a rational debate and are responding with an extended middle finger – and the challenge to come and take their arms. The fact remains that any outright attempt to take the arms from tens of millions of American gun owners would almost certainly result in a second Civil War. And we all know how the first Civil War went for the Democrats.

 So, through a campaign of shaming, dissembling, and outright slander, liberals are trying to talk Americans into giving up their weapons voluntarily. There’s always another “common sense” restriction to enact, spurred on by a tragedy that the last “common sense” restriction didn’t prevent and that the proposed new “common sense” restriction would not have prevented. They want to do it in baby steps, and with our cooperation, since they cannot do it by force.

 There are a few people arguing in good faith, but it’s too late. Liberal writer Kurt Eichenwald recently wrote a “compromise” proposal to settle the gun issue that was notable because he actually analyzed gun freedom arguments and agreed with some of them. He cited the silliness of the “assault weapons” and “cop killer” bullet lies. While he still rejects 30 round capacity magazines, he began with opposition to silencers and then, after hearing facts and evidence from knowledgeable gun owners, changed his position. That’s good faith, the threshold requirement for a real debate, but Eichenwald mistakenly assumes this is a debate based upon reason between good faith opponents. It’s not. It’s based upon the desire of liberals for total supremacy.

 So until the gun control argument becomes a real argument instead of a transparent power grab, there’s only one appropriate response to liberal gun banners. And it’s similar to “Screw you.”
 

The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.

“America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the *censored*s." - Claire Wolfe

[timberfaller]

The "gun debate" has ALWAYS been about socialist "control" not FACTS or reality.   FACTS only make Liberals go mad.

Sad part is there are a lot of "gun owners" who are so ignorant they STILL will cast a vote for a Democrat(socialist) even in today's "information age"!

[Fl0und3rz]

That’s good faith, the threshold requirement for a real debate, but Eichenwald mistakenly assumes this is a debate based upon reason between good faith opponents. It’s not. It’s based upon the desire of liberals for total supremacy.

Kurt Schlichter is a great American.

[pianoman9701]

I don't think the "screw you" argument is helpful. The anti-gun people have turned this conversation into an "Us v. Them" conversation and the "screw you" retort supports that conversation. It's much the same as the politicians on both sides have done with the discussion of politics in general and created the great divide between Rs & Ds, when in reality most of us are ideologically far closer together. They've convinced their scared-to-death followers that the people who own guns are actually advocates of the violence perpetrated by the madmen, madmen who make no such distinction and will kill people regardless of their views on the 2nd Amendment. I posted a couple of weeks ago that a female friend in OR had said on Facebook that she wanted to carry because she didn't want to be in a position like the people at Umpqua CC without a gun. One of the people responding to her post said "If you do that, THEY win." By using the word "they", the poster was lumping together not only those of us who support our rights, but those who kill with guns. And, the ultra-liberal left politicians have convinced them that this is right. I think we need to change the conversation and we can't do that by clamming up and saying "screw you". I believe the only way to convince the anti-gun sheep is to show them facts and illustrate to them the reasons why responsible gun ownership is necessary to maintain our liberty; that voluntarily allowing our government to disarm us has never worked out well for any society ever..

[westsidehntr]

"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living."
 

I don't think the "screw you" argument is helpful. The anti-gun people have turned this conversation into an "Us v. Them" conversation and the "screw you" retort supports that conversation. It's much the same as the politicians on both sides have done with the discussion of politics in general and created the great divide between Rs & Ds, when in reality most of us are ideologically far closer together. They've convinced their scared-to-death followers that the people who own guns are actually advocates of the violence perpetrated by the madmen, madmen who make no such distinction and will kill people regardless of their views on the 2nd Amendment. I posted a couple of weeks ago that a female friend in OR had said on Facebook that she wanted to carry because she didn't want to be in a position like the people at Umpqua CC without a gun. One of the people responding to her post said "If you do that, THEY win." By using the word "they", the poster was lumping together not only those of us who support our rights, but those who kill with guns. And, the ultra-liberal left politicians have convinced them that this is right. I think we need to change the conversation and we can't do that by clamming up and saying "screw you". I believe the only way to convince the anti-gun sheep is to show them facts and illustrate to them the reasons why responsible gun ownership is necessary to maintain our liberty; that voluntarily allowing our government to disarm us has never worked out well for any society ever..

I agree with you Pman, but I think its so impossible to convince enough idiots of the truth that I lean towards the "screw you" method

[pianoman9701]

I hear you. It's terribly frustrating.

[GrainfedMuley]

I believe the only way to convince the anti-gun sheep is to show them facts and illustrate to them the reasons why responsible gun ownership is necessary to maintain our liberty; that voluntarily allowing our government to disarm us has never worked out well for any society ever..

You want facts? Refer to my thread, PEW; gun deaths down 30%

[Gobble]

This is pretty much my current tactic while dealing with Libs and anti-hunters, I battle them dialy in newspaper blogs over here on the wetside. We will never change their minds or their stance but yet they are in full frontal attack on our rights as hunters and the 2nd amendment. I'm done trying to reason with them and play nice, I try to shame them back into their holes, these people will stop at nothing to take away everything we believe in, there is a urgent renewed battle to get things pushed thru government before numbnuts leaves office, I will not go down without a fight, we need to push these meatheads back into irrelavance and stand up for our rights!

[Netminder01]

The strategy needed to to combat the lack of facts begins with a social content strategy across many channels (web/video/mobile/social) and across many different demographic regions. The only way sentiment will begin to change and it's the very tactic being used today from the anti-gun side and the way the election will be won too.

[pianoman9701]

I believe the only way to convince the anti-gun sheep is to show them facts and illustrate to them the reasons why responsible gun ownership is necessary to maintain our liberty; that voluntarily allowing our government to disarm us has never worked out well for any society ever..

You want facts? Refer to my thread, PEW; gun deaths down 30%

I saw that, thanks.

[Bob33]

Stereotypes. “We” and “them”. I know several gun owners who do more harm than good for our cause. I know many non-gun owners who are reasonable individuals, and who have changed their opinions when presented with information in a factual, non-confrontational manner.

[Igor]

I don't think the "screw you" argument is helpful. The anti-gun people have turned this conversation into an "Us v. Them" conversation and the "screw you" retort supports that conversation. It's much the same as the politicians on both sides have done with the discussion of politics in general and created the great divide between Rs & Ds, when in reality most of us are ideologically far closer together. They've convinced their scared-to-death followers that the people who own guns are actually advocates of the violence perpetrated by the madmen, madmen who make no such distinction and will kill people regardless of their views on the 2nd Amendment. I posted a couple of weeks ago that a female friend in OR had said on Facebook that she wanted to carry because she didn't want to be in a position like the people at Umpqua CC without a gun. One of the people responding to her post said "If you do that, THEY win." By using the word "they", the poster was lumping together not only those of us who support our rights, but those who kill with guns. And, the ultra-liberal left politicians have convinced them that this is right. I think we need to change the conversation and we can't do that by clamming up and saying "screw you". I believe the only way to convince the anti-gun sheep is to show them facts and illustrate to them the reasons why responsible gun ownership is necessary to maintain our liberty; that voluntarily allowing our government to disarm us has never worked out well for any society ever..

I'm curious as to how many "anti-gun sheep" you have actually convinced that "responsible gun ownership is necessary".  Just wondering...............

[GrainfedMuley]

[pianoman9701]

I'm teaching one how to shoot her new handgun this week. She's not the first. How many have you turned by saying F%^$ You? I'm guessing it doesn't work near as well. By listening to people and then offering to take them shooting, I've accomplished quite a bit more than anyone I know who uses the tactics outlined in the article.

[pianoman9701]

Lol.

[bearpaw]

please see this topic....

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,185017.msg2443366/topicseen.html#new

[GrainfedMuley]

But Dale, going back and reading ALL the posts that the members made. Not one censored or banned word was posted. Nor did anybody imply any suggestive posts. It has been a civil discussion of the attitude of some gun owners in this country. Please explain to us where any violations happened. Not trying to be a jerk, I thought we were being adult about the topic.     

[jackelope]

But Dale, going back and reading ALL the posts that the members made. Not one censored or banned word was posted. Nor did anybody imply any suggestive posts. It has been a civil discussion of the attitude of some gun owners in this country. Please explain to us where any violations happened. Not trying to be a jerk, I thought we were being adult about the topic.     

I'm teaching one how to shoot her new handgun this week. She's not the first. How many have you turned by saying F%^$ You? I'm guessing it doesn't work near as well. By listening to people and then offering to take them shooting, I've accomplished quite a bit more than anyone I know who uses the tactics outlined in the article.

[GrainfedMuley]

OK, I missed that. I was speed reading.

[pianoman9701]

Oh, I didn't realize what I wrote was a no-no, since it was in the article the OP had posted and I censored it in advance in my post. I apologize. I wasn't aware that &%^ was bad. 

[Special T]

I mostly feel we have lost the battle. It takes a fiar bit of time to argue with idiots. I have taken family and friends who are non gun oweners shooting and discussed gun owership with them.
The masses will change thier mind when its too late. Just ask all the Europeans now that they have the enemy inside the gates and are relizing how vunerable they are. Gun ow ership is WAY UP! Forget about changing the masses. Educate and plant the seeds of reason with your friends and neighbors.  Those are the ones your going to need when the #2 hits the fan. Dont change the world change your neighrhood!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk

[GrainfedMuley]

Oh, I didn't realize what I wrote was a no-no, since it was in the article the OP had posted and I censored it in advance in my post. I apologize. I wasn't aware that &%^ was bad. 

Wait a minute P-man. I totally agree with your statement except about the same thing posted in the original article. The word used in the article really  means something else. It is only used in this context as a slang word. Anyway, it's Dale's site.   

[pianoman9701]

I absolutely understand and I respect Dale and this site very much. I have no problem with any rules he wants and will always try to abide by them. 

[DOUBLELUNG]

This take on the issue can be boiled down to an old proverb:

"Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

This pretty much applies to hunters vs. antihunters, gun rights advocates against gun control advocates.  If you want to be constructive, apply your efforts to the third party: the nonhunters who are not antihunters, the gun owners who are not gun rights proponents, the non-gun owners who support the 2nd Amendment.

[Dan-o]

I'm teaching one how to shoot her new handgun this week. She's not the first. How many have you turned by saying "something rude"? I'm guessing it doesn't work near as well. By listening to people and then offering to take them shooting, I've accomplished quite a bit more than anyone I know who uses the tactics outlined in the article.

I agree with PMan.

I'm proud to say that I have successfully turned a couple anti-gun folks into shooters........  and I think I've at least broadened the view of some anti-gun rights types.

[pianoman9701]

This take on the issue can be boiled down to an old proverb:

"Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

This pretty much applies to hunters vs. antihunters, gun rights advocates against gun control advocates.  If you want to be constructive, apply your efforts to the third party: the nonhunters who are not antihunters, the gun owners who are not gun rights proponents, the non-gun owners who support the 2nd Amendment.

I agree with you about anti-gun rights people. But, as with anti-hunters and non-hunters, there needs to be a distinction made between the anti-gun crowd and the non-gun crowd.

There are plenty of people out there who don't currently own guns and are not necessarily against them but ignorant to them, like the woman I'm going to work with who just got her first handgun. She's been afraid to own guns all of her life. Her family is wildly liberal and wouldn't ever consider owning guns because they're evil and kill people all by themselves. But she lives in OR and when the Umpqua CC shooting happened, she go really scared and we talked about it again. Some people are really scared and aren't aware of the options available to them. It's easy to ask them this question: Do you question whether or not you'd use a gun you own to murder one or more people? If their answer is "no" (and it usually is), ask them whether, in the case of an active shooter event, they would feel better armed with a firearm they're trained to use or not armed. Then ask them if they'd like to go shooting to see what it's all about. In my case, I can also tell them I'm a certified NRA range safety officer and Hunter Edumacation instructor. That seems to allay any fears about having gun accidents at the range or in the woods. It works and I've made new gun owners out of a few of my friends and neighbors.