A friend's argument on guns, I like to hear your rebuttal

[OscarLevant]

This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments

( copied with permission)


Leonidas Christian Mixon

“We have a gun problem and a bull**** problem in the United States. Let me start by saying I am a gun owner. I have been since I was 6. I’ve had jobs that required me to carry a weapon. I’ve been shot at more than once. I’ve disarmed people who were trying to kill me. This isn’t coming from someone who doesn’t understand guns. It’s precisely because I do understand them that I’m going to call out the bull**** that stops us from having the reforms to gun laws that we needed years ago. If you want to debate any of the points below, I have no problem.
These are simple facts.

1) I need an assault rifle for home defense.

No, you don’t. A short barreled shotgun is the best tool for home defense. And that only counts if you’re insanely proficient with it and you get incredibly lucky. The likelihood you will get the chance to use it is next to zero. If you do, you’re very likely to kill a member of your family accidentally. In a REAL altercation, you don’t get to choose your field of fire. It happens incredibly fast, usually in the dark. If you’re popping off with a rifle, you are going to hit things you don’t intend to. Guns are tools. Period. Assault Rifles are intended to be used on a battlefield. Battlefield tactics don’t work in your house. It’s a bull**** argument.

2) I need to protect myself from a tyrannical Government...

Holy **** that’s stupid. That idea was from a time when the state of war was much more level. It isn’t now. At all. If an armored transport shows up on your front lawn with a 50 cal on the roof, you and your AK are ****ing toast. Soldiers train, and their weapons are an extension of their body. You will instantly lose. And before you bring up guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq... you need a reality check. Those people were born in a country that was at war, on their soil, for their entire lives. You don’t compare to that on your best day. And they die in FAR greater numbers than they kill.

3) Gun registration, background checks, etc are a slippery slope to confiscation.

Bull****. We register cars. We have to prove proficiency to operate them. We are required to have insurance in the event we cause damage with them. It’s been that way for decades, and no one is “coming to take your car”. Making sure people have the barest minimum of responsibility doesn’t lead to loss. Fear of loss leads to fundraising and bull****. It’s not rational.

4) My gun is a right that can’t be modified.

Again, utter bull****. You can’t own a howitzer unless the barrel is full of concrete. You can’t own a cannon manufactured in the last century. You can’t own a fully automatic weapon without a FFL. That’s why those things are rarely used in crimes. And all of that is based on an amendment to our constitution that can be changed if we as a country see fit to do so. We have changed amendments before and we will again. If you don’t understand that you need a history lesson and a dictionary.

Creating common sense laws that put speed bumps in the way of lunatics helps. Every time. Automobile licenses, speed limits, etc don’t end accidents, but they make them less frequent and less deadly. It’s a proven concept. The time for bull**** excuses is over. It’s time to step up and take responsibility. **** this stupidity.”

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Well, I disagree vehemently on the short barreled shotgun thing but otherwise he makes decent points.

But as to overturning the 2A I am inclined to believe that won't ever happen. It is just one of those things we won't ever give up, and even if it were to be overturned, all you would wind up doing is creating the most massive underground black market and the most massive resistance movement ever seen. The only effect would be to criminalize millions of law abiding persons.
It would be a massive failure.

And yet, requiring some accountability from gun owners is sensible, although I would leave home handguns alone, and make things very minimal for the typical home protection handgun owner.

 

[Moon]

Sounds like the same old arguments you see on this board every day. He claims a pretty extensive background, but there’s no way to prove it. Regardless, he’s entitled to his opinion just like everyone else, and his doesn’t carry any more weight than mine or anyone else’s.

 

[Harshaw]

This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments

( copied with permission)


Leonidas Christian Mixon

“We have a gun problem and a bull**** problem in the United States. Let me start by saying I am a gun owner. I have been since I was 6. I’ve had jobs that required me to carry a weapon. I’ve been shot at more than once. I’ve disarmed people who were trying to kill me. This isn’t coming from someone who doesn’t understand guns. It’s precisely because I do understand them that I’m going to call out the bull**** that stops us from having the reforms to gun laws that we needed years ago. If you want to debate any of the points below, I have no problem.
These are simple facts.

1) I need an assault rifle for home defense.

No, you don’t. A short barreled shotgun is the best tool for home defense. And that only counts if you’re insanely proficient with it and you get incredibly lucky. The likelihood you will get the chance to use it is next to zero. If you do, you’re very likely to kill a member of your family accidentally. In a REAL altercation, you don’t get to choose your field of fire. It happens incredibly fast, usually in the dark. If you’re popping off with a rifle, you are going to hit things you don’t intend to. Guns are tools. Period. Assault Rifles are intended to be used on a battlefield. Battlefield tactics don’t work in your house. It’s a bull**** argument.

2) I need to protect myself from a tyrannical Government...

Holy **** that’s stupid. That idea was from a time when the state of war was much more level. It isn’t now. At all. If an armored transport shows up on your front lawn with a 50 cal on the roof, you and your AK are ****ing toast. Soldiers train, and their weapons are an extension of their body. You will instantly lose. And before you bring up guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq... you need a reality check. Those people were born in a country that was at war, on their soil, for their entire lives. You don’t compare to that on your best day. And they die in FAR greater numbers than they kill.

3) Gun registration, background checks, etc are a slippery slope to confiscation.

Bull****. We register cars. We have to prove proficiency to operate them. We are required to have insurance in the event we cause damage with them. It’s been that way for decades, and no one is “coming to take your car”. Making sure people have the barest minimum of responsibility doesn’t lead to loss. Fear of loss leads to fundraising and bull****. It’s not rational.

4) My gun is a right that can’t be modified.

Again, utter bull****. You can’t own a howitzer unless the barrel is full of concrete. You can’t own a cannon manufactured in the last century. You can’t own a fully automatic weapon without a FFL. That’s why those things are rarely used in crimes. And all of that is based on an amendment to our constitution that can be changed if we as a country see fit to do so. We have changed amendments before and we will again. If you don’t understand that you need a history lesson and a dictionary.

Creating common sense laws that put speed bumps in the way of lunatics helps. Every time. Automobile licenses, speed limits, etc don’t end accidents, but they make them less frequent and less deadly. It’s a proven concept. The time for bull**** excuses is over. It’s time to step up and take responsibility. **** this stupidity.”

There is literally nothing in there which hasn't been discussed to death in this forum dozens upon dozens of times. He even uses the exact same phrasing as it always comes up in, including the same dumb "cars" analogy, though the frequent profanity is just an added (vapidity) bonus.

Do some searches in this forum; you'll find exhaustive responses to every single point. Every single one. You may not even need to go past the first page of threads.

So, I don't see why anyone would bother to do it for you, again.

 

[ttwtt78640]

He was OK until #3 and by extension #4.

The 2A does not define a state issued privilege (like driving a car) it greatly limits the government from removing the (pre-existing) right of the people to own and carry guns suitable for militia (military) use. Therefore, any comparisons to a mere state issued privilege are BS.

Simply because the 2A, like many rights, are not unlimited does not mean that any and all limits are OK. If that was the case then the entire BoR is simply window dressing and the federal government can pass any laws that it desires. To refer to things like the AWB or magazine capacity limits as a "speed bumps" is just plain dishonesty - it's a ban on guns (or integral parts of them) currently in common use for lawful purposes.

 

[AGENT J]

This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments

( copied with permission)


Leonidas Christian Mixon

“We have a gun problem and a bull**** problem in the United States. Let me start by saying I am a gun owner. I have been since I was 6. I’ve had jobs that required me to carry a weapon. I’ve been shot at more than once. I’ve disarmed people who were trying to kill me. This isn’t coming from someone who doesn’t understand guns. It’s precisely because I do understand them that I’m going to call out the bull**** that stops us from having the reforms to gun laws that we needed years ago. If you want to debate any of the points below, I have no problem.
These are simple facts.

1) I need an assault rifle for home defense.

No, you don’t. A short barreled shotgun is the best tool for home defense. And that only counts if you’re insanely proficient with it and you get incredibly lucky. The likelihood you will get the chance to use it is next to zero. If you do, you’re very likely to kill a member of your family accidentally. In a REAL altercation, you don’t get to choose your field of fire. It happens incredibly fast, usually in the dark. If you’re popping off with a rifle, you are going to hit things you don’t intend to. Guns are tools. Period. Assault Rifles are intended to be used on a battlefield. Battlefield tactics don’t work in your house. It’s a bull**** argument.

2) I need to protect myself from a tyrannical Government...

Holy **** that’s stupid. That idea was from a time when the state of war was much more level. It isn’t now. At all. If an armored transport shows up on your front lawn with a 50 cal on the roof, you and your AK are ****ing toast. Soldiers train, and their weapons are an extension of their body. You will instantly lose. And before you bring up guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq... you need a reality check. Those people were born in a country that was at war, on their soil, for their entire lives. You don’t compare to that on your best day. And they die in FAR greater numbers than they kill.

3) Gun registration, background checks, etc are a slippery slope to confiscation.

Bull****. We register cars. We have to prove proficiency to operate them. We are required to have insurance in the event we cause damage with them. It’s been that way for decades, and no one is “coming to take your car”. Making sure people have the barest minimum of responsibility doesn’t lead to loss. Fear of loss leads to fundraising and bull****. It’s not rational.

4) My gun is a right that can’t be modified.

Again, utter bull****. You can’t own a howitzer unless the barrel is full of concrete. You can’t own a cannon manufactured in the last century. You can’t own a fully automatic weapon without a FFL. That’s why those things are rarely used in crimes. And all of that is based on an amendment to our constitution that can be changed if we as a country see fit to do so. We have changed amendments before and we will again. If you don’t understand that you need a history lesson and a dictionary.

Creating common sense laws that put speed bumps in the way of lunatics helps. Every time. Automobile licenses, speed limits, etc don’t end accidents, but they make them less frequent and less deadly. It’s a proven concept. The time for bull**** excuses is over. It’s time to step up and take responsibility. **** this stupidity.”

theres nothing to argue really that was all feelings and opinions mostly . . nothing magical or discussion ending in anyway

ill make the same post i do in most of these threads


Ill probably support ANY gun law as long as it doesn't punish me (law-abiding citizen), endanger me and my loved ones while also empowering criminals.
Many new laws suggested do just that

Make laws that punish CRIMINAL activity and CRIMINALS with guns oand enforce the many laws already on the books
Punsh ILLEGAL manufacturing, distribution and transportation of guns

Do things that will actually help and wont put me at risk and i can get on board

 

[jonny5]

This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments

He sounds like a jerk who isnt interested in actual debate. He would fit in here. Tell him to try not being condescending next time.

 

[Gdjjr]

4 words- shall not be infringed-

Besides that the OP use of the word "need"- needs are: air, water, food, clothing and shelter (the last two are optional)
What many can't seem to grasp is it has nothing to to do with need. Everyone has the Right to defend themselves as they *choose*- no person, or entity has the Right, nor are they entitled to make any choice for anyone other than themselves.
The points are compelling because they use emotion- we have to do something- yeah? Says who? "I" have to defend myself in the manner "I" see fit. "I" is the Individual- the collective demands compliance and denies the Right of the Individual- that is immoral- and Individuals have the Right to defend and protect themselves from immoral actions.

 

[Bullseye]

This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments

( copied with permission)


Leonidas Christian Mixon

“We have a gun problem and a bull**** problem in the United States. Let me start by saying I am a gun owner. I have been since I was 6. I’ve had jobs that required me to carry a weapon. I’ve been shot at more than once. I’ve disarmed people who were trying to kill me. This isn’t coming from someone who doesn’t understand guns. It’s precisely because I do understand them that I’m going to call out the bull**** that stops us from having the reforms to gun laws that we needed years ago. If you want to debate any of the points below, I have no problem.
These are simple facts.

1) I need an assault rifle for home defense.

No, you don’t. A short barreled shotgun is the best tool for home defense. And that only counts if you’re insanely proficient with it and you get incredibly lucky. The likelihood you will get the chance to use it is next to zero. If you do, you’re very likely to kill a member of your family accidentally. In a REAL altercation, you don’t get to choose your field of fire. It happens incredibly fast, usually in the dark. If you’re popping off with a rifle, you are going to hit things you don’t intend to. Guns are tools. Period. Assault Rifles are intended to be used on a battlefield. Battlefield tactics don’t work in your house. It’s a bull**** argument.

2) I need to protect myself from a tyrannical Government...

Holy **** that’s stupid. That idea was from a time when the state of war was much more level. It isn’t now. At all. If an armored transport shows up on your front lawn with a 50 cal on the roof, you and your AK are ****ing toast. Soldiers train, and their weapons are an extension of their body. You will instantly lose. And before you bring up guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq... you need a reality check. Those people were born in a country that was at war, on their soil, for their entire lives. You don’t compare to that on your best day. And they die in FAR greater numbers than they kill.

3) Gun registration, background checks, etc are a slippery slope to confiscation.

Bull****. We register cars. We have to prove proficiency to operate them. We are required to have insurance in the event we cause damage with them. It’s been that way for decades, and no one is “coming to take your car”. Making sure people have the barest minimum of responsibility doesn’t lead to loss. Fear of loss leads to fundraising and bull****. It’s not rational.

4) My gun is a right that can’t be modified.

Again, utter bull****. You can’t own a howitzer unless the barrel is full of concrete. You can’t own a cannon manufactured in the last century. You can’t own a fully automatic weapon without a FFL. That’s why those things are rarely used in crimes. And all of that is based on an amendment to our constitution that can be changed if we as a country see fit to do so. We have changed amendments before and we will again. If you don’t understand that you need a history lesson and a dictionary.

Creating common sense laws that put speed bumps in the way of lunatics helps. Every time. Automobile licenses, speed limits, etc don’t end accidents, but they make them less frequent and less deadly. It’s a proven concept. The time for bull**** excuses is over. It’s time to step up and take responsibility. **** this stupidity.”

With all due respect to your friend there isn't an original thought in the entire clip. I do give him a B+ on his writing skills however - he's adept at spinning logical fallacies and non sequiturs into a very amusing piece.

 

[Common Sense 1]

The Supreme Court spelled it out in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

 

[pinqy]

This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments

( copied with permission)


Leonidas Christian Mixon

“We have a gun problem and a bull**** problem in the United States. Let me start by saying I am a gun owner. I have been since I was 6. I’ve had jobs that required me to carry a weapon. I’ve been shot at more than once. I’ve disarmed people who were trying to kill me. This isn’t coming from someone who doesn’t understand guns. It’s precisely because I do understand them that I’m going to call out the bull**** that stops us from having the reforms to gun laws that we needed years ago. If you want to debate any of the points below, I have no problem.
These are simple facts.

1) I need an assault rifle for home defense.

Right there shows ignorance of firearms. Assault rifles (select fire intermediate cartridge rifles) are classified as machine guns under Federal law, and all machine guns made after 1986 are already banned from sale.

No, you don’t. A short barreled shotgun is the best tool for home defense. And that only counts if you’re insanely proficient with it and you get incredibly lucky.

Short barreled shotguns are strictly regulated, require registration with BATFE and a $200 tax stamp after a months long wait.

The likelihood you will get the chance to use it is next to zero. If you do, you’re very likely to kill a member of your family accidentally. In a REAL altercation, you don’t get to choose your field of fire. It happens incredibly fast, usually in the dark. If you’re popping off with a rifle, you are going to hit things you don’t intend to. Guns are tools. Period. Assault Rifles are intended to be used on a battlefield. Battlefield tactics don’t work in your house. It’s a bull**** argument.

“You don’t need X,” or “there are better options than X,” are not actually arguments for why X should be banned. If something is a right, then the burden is to show that a restriction is necessary.

2) I need to protect myself from a tyrannical Government...

Holy **** that’s stupid. That idea was from a time when the state of war was much more level. It isn’t now. At all. If an armored transport shows up on your front lawn with a 50 cal on the roof, you and your AK are ****ing toast. Soldiers train, and their weapons are an extension of their body. You will instantly lose. And before you bring up guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq... you need a reality check. Those people were born in a country that was at war, on their soil, for their entire lives. You don’t compare to that on your best day. And they die in FAR greater numbers than they kill.

Again, people don’t need to justify owning a weapon; the government has to justify why they should not.

3) Gun registration, background checks, etc are a slippery slope to confiscation.

Bull****. We register cars. We have to prove proficiency to operate them. We are required to have insurance in the event we cause damage with them. It’s been that way for decades, and no one is “coming to take your car”. Making sure people have the barest minimum of responsibility doesn’t lead to loss. Fear of loss leads to fundraising and bull****. It’s not rational.

You only need to register a car that is to be used in public. And it’s because they are used in public. To use a firearm in public...well, you can’t..unless you are hunting, which already requires a license, or in the unpredictable event of self-defense. So that’s not a valid comparison.

Keeping in mind that the courts have already ruled that the state cannot require those not legally allowed to own fire arms to register them, then registration is only of those legally allowed to own them. So what is the reason for requiring registration? What problem does it solve?

4) My gun is a right that can’t be modified.

Again, utter bull****. You can’t own a howitzer unless the barrel is full of concrete. You can’t own a cannon manufactured in the last century. You can’t own a fully automatic weapon without a FFL. That’s why those things are rarely used in crimes. And all of that is based on an amendment to our constitution that can be changed if we as a country see fit to do so. We have changed amendments before and we will again. If you don’t understand that you need a history lesson and a dictionary.

Howitzers and cannon are not “arms” as used in the 2A, so that’s a bit of a straw man.

Almost no one claims there should be no restrictions at all on firearms, but there has to be a good reason for the restriction.

It seems to me that most people who want super strict gun control are operating from the starting point that no guns should be allowed and ownership needs to be be justified. But that’s backwards. Restrictions must be justified.

 

[TurtleDude]

This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments

( copied with permission)


Leonidas Christian Mixon

“We have a gun problem and a bull**** problem in the United States. Let me start by saying I am a gun owner. I have been since I was 6. I’ve had jobs that required me to carry a weapon. I’ve been shot at more than once. I’ve disarmed people who were trying to kill me. This isn’t coming from someone who doesn’t understand guns. It’s precisely because I do understand them that I’m going to call out the bull**** that stops us from having the reforms to gun laws that we needed years ago. If you want to debate any of the points below, I have no problem.
These are simple facts.

1) I need an assault rifle for home defense.

No, you don’t. A short barreled shotgun is the best tool for home defense. And that only counts if you’re insanely proficient with it and you get incredibly lucky. The likelihood you will get the chance to use it is next to zero. If you do, you’re very likely to kill a member of your family accidentally. In a REAL altercation, you don’t get to choose your field of fire. It happens incredibly fast, usually in the dark. If you’re popping off with a rifle, you are going to hit things you don’t intend to. Guns are tools. Period. Assault Rifles are intended to be used on a battlefield. Battlefield tactics don’t work in your house. It’s a bull**** argument.

2) I need to protect myself from a tyrannical Government...

Holy **** that’s stupid. That idea was from a time when the state of war was much more level. It isn’t now. At all. If an armored transport shows up on your front lawn with a 50 cal on the roof, you and your AK are ****ing toast. Soldiers train, and their weapons are an extension of their body. You will instantly lose. And before you bring up guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq... you need a reality check. Those people were born in a country that was at war, on their soil, for their entire lives. You don’t compare to that on your best day. And they die in FAR greater numbers than they kill.

3) Gun registration, background checks, etc are a slippery slope to confiscation.

Bull****. We register cars. We have to prove proficiency to operate them. We are required to have insurance in the event we cause damage with them. It’s been that way for decades, and no one is “coming to take your car”. Making sure people have the barest minimum of responsibility doesn’t lead to loss. Fear of loss leads to fundraising and bull****. It’s not rational.

4) My gun is a right that can’t be modified.

Again, utter bull****. You can’t own a howitzer unless the barrel is full of concrete. You can’t own a cannon manufactured in the last century. You can’t own a fully automatic weapon without a FFL. That’s why those things are rarely used in crimes. And all of that is based on an amendment to our constitution that can be changed if we as a country see fit to do so. We have changed amendments before and we will again. If you don’t understand that you need a history lesson and a dictionary.

Creating common sense laws that put speed bumps in the way of lunatics helps. Every time. Automobile licenses, speed limits, etc don’t end accidents, but they make them less frequent and less deadly. It’s a proven concept. The time for bull**** excuses is over. It’s time to step up and take responsibility. **** this stupidity.”

really stupid arguments. they have been annihilated on this board over and over. And I certainly don't need stupid people telling me what is the best weapon for home defense. That is as stupid as saying what the best medicine is for a disease, without knowing what the illness is

and guess what, registration etc has been used to confiscate guns so your friend is a willful moron for not studying history

 

[Noodlegawd]

Child's Play

1) I need an assault rifle for home defense.

No, you don’t. A short barreled shotgun is the best tool for home defense. And that only counts if you’re insanely proficient with it and you get incredibly lucky. The likelihood you will get the chance to use it is next to zero. If you do, you’re very likely to kill a member of your family accidentally. In a REAL altercation, you don’t get to choose your field of fire. It happens incredibly fast, usually in the dark. If you’re popping off with a rifle, you are going to hit things you don’t intend to. Guns are tools. Period. Assault Rifles are intended to be used on a battlefield. Battlefield tactics don’t work in your house. It’s a bull**** argument.

First, this is a straw man argument. Nobody claims that they "need" an "assault rifle" (I'll assume he means AR-15, here, to be generous to a guy who claims to know about firearms) for home defense. That said, if a firearm is more effective for murdering people, then it's more effective for stopping intruders. The most effective weapon for home defense is the weapon you're most effective with. Millions of people, many of them veterans, are very if not most familiar with the AR platform.

2) I need to protect myself from a tyrannical Government...

Holy **** that’s stupid. That idea was from a time when the state of war was much more level. It isn’t now. At all. If an armored transport shows up on your front lawn with a 50 cal on the roof, you and your AK are ****ing toast. Soldiers train, and their weapons are an extension of their body. You will instantly lose. And before you bring up guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq... you need a reality check. Those people were born in a country that was at war, on their soil, for their entire lives. You don’t compare to that on your best day. And they die in FAR greater numbers than they kill.

This is a stupidly simplistic view. As I indicated before, millions of AR owners are former soldiers. And millions more AR owners are proficient with their weapon. They may need more training to be an effective soldier, but one less thing is one less thing, and actually having access to the weapon could be a major factor.

3) Gun registration, background checks, etc are a slippery slope to confiscation.

Bull****. We register cars. We have to prove proficiency to operate them. We are required to have insurance in the event we cause damage with them. It’s been that way for decades, and no one is “coming to take your car”. Making sure people have the barest minimum of responsibility doesn’t lead to loss. Fear of loss leads to fundraising and bull****. It’s not rational.

There's no rational argument for registration, other than the possibility of confiscation. Cars are registered for an entirely different reason than some people want to register guns for.

4) My gun is a right that can’t be modified.

Again, utter bull****. You can’t own a howitzer unless the barrel is full of concrete. You can’t own a cannon manufactured in the last century. You can’t own a fully automatic weapon without a FFL. That’s why those things are rarely used in crimes. And all of that is based on an amendment to our constitution that can be changed if we as a country see fit to do so. We have changed amendments before and we will again. If you don’t understand that you need a history lesson and a dictionary.

Then change it.

Creating common sense laws that put speed bumps in the way of lunatics helps. Every time. Automobile licenses, speed limits, etc don’t end accidents, but they make them less frequent and less deadly. It’s a proven concept. The time for bull**** excuses is over. It’s time to step up and take responsibility. **** this stupidity.”

Wake me up when a Democrat proposes a "common sense law". Practically every law they have pushed so far is a lie (more on this later).

 

[VanceMack]

This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments

Creating common sense laws that put speed bumps in the way of lunatics helps. Every time. Automobile licenses, speed limits, etc don’t end accidents, but they make them less frequent and less deadly. It’s a proven concept. The time for bull**** excuses is over. It’s time to step up and take responsibility. **** this stupidity.”

Sounds like your friend is a dumbass...but then he also sounds like any number of Chamberlains all too eager to turn over gun rights.

1-When military personnel sweep a building are they doing it with pistols, short barrelled shotguns, or rifles? When SWAT teams clear buildings, are they doing it with pistols, short barrelled shotguns, or rifles? If you are too stupid to understand the tactical advantage of a rifle in a home defense environment you probably shouldnt tout yourself as some sort of 'expert'.

Now...lets toss him a bone. Do you NEED ONLY an AR for home defense? No. Its a personal choice. But there is an absolute tactical advantage to rifles over all else. Thats why experts train with them. There is a reason why gunfighters use the sentence "The purpose of the pistol is to fight your way to your rifle". But pistol, shotgun, as long as you dont follow that mindless twat Joe Bidens advice he gave to Jill for home defense...you are going to probably be in OK shape.

2-Well...no. You dont need it to defend from a tyrannical government because our system of government is built to ensure the military wont be run by tyrants. Thats why we have the Constitution. Now...you may be scratching your head a little bit on that, because there are a LARGE NUMBER of mindless leftist ****wits that insist that our current president is a tyrant, a nazi, a Russian agent, a fascist...and if they REALLY believe such stupid notions, then you MIGHT think...huh...now more than ever we NEED weapons of war for a gravest extreme situation. But seriously...only a retarded leftist ****wit would actually believe those things about the current president...not responsible gun owners. But if you WERE one of those idiot lefts twats...why WOULDNT you rush out to buy a tactical rifle and learn how to use it?

Now...is it possible that some day some idiot leftist ****head might support open borders to the point where they put the country at risk? Sure...in fact the idiot leftists are lining up even now trying to find the right piece of **** leftist candidate to do just that. And that is a pretty solid reason to maintain tactical weaponry. is it possible...possible, not necessarily likely but possible...that enough radical idiot leftist ****heads might start riots in peoples towns necessitating the people defend themselves? Sure...of course.

OK..enough of 2.

3-What kind of ****ing moron is or has ever suggested CARS were going to be confiscated or would equate car registration with GUN REGISTRATION and CONFISCATION...something that has happened numerous times in the worlds history and something the idiot leftists are pushing for today. Seriously...your friends car example is as stupid as the idiot leftists that say "yeah..but what about nukes?"

4-If that dumbass doesnt believe firearms can be forced into modification he should go look at the idiotic laws California has passed.

 

[Jimbo302]

This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments

That nonsense is not the least bit compelling. It is the same old, incorrect , "I know what's best for everyone else, and I'm willing to force it upon them" arguments.

 

[vegas giants]

Sounds like your friend is a dumbass...but then he also sounds like any number of Chamberlains all too eager to turn over gun rights.

1-When military personnel sweep a building are they doing it with pistols, short barrelled shotguns, or rifles? When SWAT teams clear buildings, are they doing it with pistols, short barrelled shotguns, or rifles? If you are too stupid to understand the tactical advantage of a rifle in a home defense environment you probably shouldnt tout yourself as some sort of 'expert'.

Now...lets toss him a bone. Do you NEED ONLY an AR for home defense? No. Its a personal choice. But there is an absolute tactical advantage to rifles over all else. Thats why experts train with them. There is a reason why gunfighters use the sentence "The purpose of the pistol is to fight your way to your rifle". But pistol, shotgun, as long as you dont follow that mindless twat Joe Bidens advice he gave to Jill for home defense...you are going to probably be in OK shape.

2-Well...no. You dont need it to defend from a tyrannical government because our system of government is built to ensure the military wont be run by tyrants. Thats why we have the Constitution. Now...you may be scratching your head a little bit on that, because there are a LARGE NUMBER of mindless leftist ****wits that insist that our current president is a tyrant, a nazi, a Russian agent, a fascist...and if they REALLY believe such stupid notions, then you MIGHT think...huh...now more than ever we NEED weapons of war for a gravest extreme situation. But seriously...only a retarded leftist ****wit would actually believe those things about the current president...not responsible gun owners. But if you WERE one of those idiot lefts twats...why WOULDNT you rush out to buy a tactical rifle and learn how to use it?

Now...is it possible that some day some idiot leftist ****head might support open borders to the point where they put the country at risk? Sure...in fact the idiot leftists are lining up even now trying to find the right piece of **** leftist candidate to do just that. And that is a pretty solid reason to maintain tactical weaponry. is it possible...possible, not necessarily likely but possible...that enough radical idiot leftist ****heads might start riots in peoples towns necessitating the people defend themselves? Sure...of course.

OK..enough of 2.

3-What kind of ****ing moron is or has ever suggested CARS were going to be confiscated or would equate car registration with GUN REGISTRATION and CONFISCATION...something that has happened numerous times in the worlds history and something the idiot leftists are pushing for today. Seriously...your friends car example is as stupid as the idiot leftists that say "yeah..but what about nukes?"

4-If that dumbass doesnt believe firearms can be forced into modification he should go look at the idiotic laws California has passed.

Fight your way to your rifle?? What are you in a Arnold Schwarzenegger movie,?



Get to the chopper!!!! Lol

 

[vegas giants]

This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments

( copied with permission)


Leonidas Christian Mixon

“We have a gun problem and a bull**** problem in the United States. Let me start by saying I am a gun owner. I have been since I was 6. I’ve had jobs that required me to carry a weapon. I’ve been shot at more than once. I’ve disarmed people who were trying to kill me. This isn’t coming from someone who doesn’t understand guns. It’s precisely because I do understand them that I’m going to call out the bull**** that stops us from having the reforms to gun laws that we needed years ago. If you want to debate any of the points below, I have no problem.
These are simple facts.

1) I need an assault rifle for home defense.

No, you don’t. A short barreled shotgun is the best tool for home defense. And that only counts if you’re insanely proficient with it and you get incredibly lucky. The likelihood you will get the chance to use it is next to zero. If you do, you’re very likely to kill a member of your family accidentally. In a REAL altercation, you don’t get to choose your field of fire. It happens incredibly fast, usually in the dark. If you’re popping off with a rifle, you are going to hit things you don’t intend to. Guns are tools. Period. Assault Rifles are intended to be used on a battlefield. Battlefield tactics don’t work in your house. It’s a bull**** argument.

2) I need to protect myself from a tyrannical Government...

Holy **** that’s stupid. That idea was from a time when the state of war was much more level. It isn’t now. At all. If an armored transport shows up on your front lawn with a 50 cal on the roof, you and your AK are ****ing toast. Soldiers train, and their weapons are an extension of their body. You will instantly lose. And before you bring up guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq... you need a reality check. Those people were born in a country that was at war, on their soil, for their entire lives. You don’t compare to that on your best day. And they die in FAR greater numbers than they kill.

3) Gun registration, background checks, etc are a slippery slope to confiscation.

Bull****. We register cars. We have to prove proficiency to operate them. We are required to have insurance in the event we cause damage with them. It’s been that way for decades, and no one is “coming to take your car”. Making sure people have the barest minimum of responsibility doesn’t lead to loss. Fear of loss leads to fundraising and bull****. It’s not rational.

4) My gun is a right that can’t be modified.

Again, utter bull****. You can’t own a howitzer unless the barrel is full of concrete. You can’t own a cannon manufactured in the last century. You can’t own a fully automatic weapon without a FFL. That’s why those things are rarely used in crimes. And all of that is based on an amendment to our constitution that can be changed if we as a country see fit to do so. We have changed amendments before and we will again. If you don’t understand that you need a history lesson and a dictionary.

Creating common sense laws that put speed bumps in the way of lunatics helps. Every time. Automobile licenses, speed limits, etc don’t end accidents, but they make them less frequent and less deadly. It’s a proven concept. The time for bull**** excuses is over. It’s time to step up and take responsibility. **** this stupidity.”

I agree generally but go with a handgun for home defense

 

[ttwtt78640]

Right there shows ignorance of firearms. Assault rifles (select fire intermediate cartridge rifles) are classified as machine guns under Federal law, and all machine guns made after 1986 are already banned from sale.


Short barreled shotguns are strictly regulated, require registration with BATFE and a $200 tax stamp after a months long wait.



“You don’t need X,” or “there are better options than X,” are not actually arguments for why X should be banned. If something is a right, then the burden is to show that a restriction is necessary.


Again, people don’t need to justify owning a weapon; the government has to justify why they should not.


You only need to register a car that is to be used in public. And it’s because they are used in public. To use a firearm in public...well, you can’t..unless you are hunting, which already requires a license, or in the unpredictable event of self-defense. So that’s not a valid comparison.

Keeping in mind that the courts have already ruled that the state cannot require those not legally allowed to own fire arms to register them, then registration is only of those legally allowed to own them. So what is the reason for requiring registration? What problem does it solve?


Howitzers and cannon are not “arms” as used in the 2A, so that’s a bit of a straw man.

Almost no one claims there should be no restrictions at all on firearms, but there has to be a good reason for the restriction.

It seems to me that most people who want super strict gun control are operating from the starting point that no guns should be allowed and ownership needs to be be justified. But that’s backwards. Restrictions must be justified.

The scary (ridiculous?) part is that justification seems to be the potential for criminal abuse and/or guns are designed for (capable of?) killing people. Neither of those are new concepts which were not considered by the founders and, of course, apply to any and all guns thus are not valid reasons to do anything short of a complete ban of all guns (and any other tool/equipment abused by criminals?).

 

[KevinKohler]

This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments

( copied with permission)


Leonidas Christian Mixon

“We have a gun problem and a bull**** problem in the United States. Let me start by saying I am a gun owner. I have been since I was 6. I’ve had jobs that required me to carry a weapon. I’ve been shot at more than once. I’ve disarmed people who were trying to kill me. This isn’t coming from someone who doesn’t understand guns. It’s precisely because I do understand them that I’m going to call out the bull**** that stops us from having the reforms to gun laws that we needed years ago. If you want to debate any of the points below, I have no problem.
These are simple facts.

1) I need an assault rifle for home defense.

No, you don’t. A short barreled shotgun is the best tool for home defense. And that only counts if you’re insanely proficient with it and you get incredibly lucky. The likelihood you will get the chance to use it is next to zero. If you do, you’re very likely to kill a member of your family accidentally. In a REAL altercation, you don’t get to choose your field of fire. It happens incredibly fast, usually in the dark. If you’re popping off with a rifle, you are going to hit things you don’t intend to. Guns are tools. Period. Assault Rifles are intended to be used on a battlefield. Battlefield tactics don’t work in your house. It’s a bull**** argument.

2) I need to protect myself from a tyrannical Government...

Holy **** that’s stupid. That idea was from a time when the state of war was much more level. It isn’t now. At all. If an armored transport shows up on your front lawn with a 50 cal on the roof, you and your AK are ****ing toast. Soldiers train, and their weapons are an extension of their body. You will instantly lose. And before you bring up guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq... you need a reality check. Those people were born in a country that was at war, on their soil, for their entire lives. You don’t compare to that on your best day. And they die in FAR greater numbers than they kill.

3) Gun registration, background checks, etc are a slippery slope to confiscation.

Bull****. We register cars. We have to prove proficiency to operate them. We are required to have insurance in the event we cause damage with them. It’s been that way for decades, and no one is “coming to take your car”. Making sure people have the barest minimum of responsibility doesn’t lead to loss. Fear of loss leads to fundraising and bull****. It’s not rational.

4) My gun is a right that can’t be modified.

Again, utter bull****. You can’t own a howitzer unless the barrel is full of concrete. You can’t own a cannon manufactured in the last century. You can’t own a fully automatic weapon without a FFL. That’s why those things are rarely used in crimes. And all of that is based on an amendment to our constitution that can be changed if we as a country see fit to do so. We have changed amendments before and we will again. If you don’t understand that you need a history lesson and a dictionary.

Creating common sense laws that put speed bumps in the way of lunatics helps. Every time. Automobile licenses, speed limits, etc don’t end accidents, but they make them less frequent and less deadly. It’s a proven concept. The time for bull**** excuses is over. It’s time to step up and take responsibility. **** this stupidity.”

1. Good thing assault rifles are already banned/heavily restricted.

2. I agree with this, and have made this same argument in the past.

A question for your friend...if we don't need it to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, why do civilian police forces need them?

3. What's the point of registration and licensing? What's the goal? Be detailed.

4. We are well aware that amendments can be changed and modified.

So, get the votes you need, and DO it. Otherwise, stop talking about it.

 

[rickc]

My rebuttal

I enjoy the shooting sports. I am a law abiding citizen with no criminal record. I see no reason why i should be restricted in what guns i want to purchase or where i can take them.

As for fighting the military that is a ludicrous argument. But our society is pretty fragile. In the case of natural disaster or power grid failure or any number of scenarios you might be required to protect you and your loved ones from those who might do you harm. No way i will stand by helplessly while my loved ones are harmed.

But that is really not why i own guns. I love shooting small holes in paper. I love reloading ammo that can shoot even smaller holes in paper. I am no threat to anyone and see no reason to have the enjoyment of my hobby restricted.

I think many people feel the same

There are risk we take every day that are.greater than the risk of being caught up in a mass shooting. No one would get in a car or ride a bike or go swiming if they weighed the risk against that of being the victim of a mass shooting.

Many things we.could do to reduce the incidents without restricting or eliminating guns. How we treat the mentalmy ill would be a.great start. Most of.the time there are plenty of obvious signs before they go off the deep end. Maybe someone should have said something.

Personally i don't understand the irrational fear some have of guns

 

[joko104]

This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments

Your "friend" is really extra stupid, uninformed and incompetent by his own admission. Nothing he stated is anything but anti-2A talking points. This means almost every fact he asserts - and then rants upon - is false and a lie.

Almost no one owns an "assault weapon" or "a short barrel shotgun." Unless a person goes through a 3 to 6 month FBI background check, such a firearm registered to that owner with the government and paying a $200 fee, it is a federal offense up to 10 years in prison to have either an assault rifle or a short barrel shotgun. Try to name ANY murder done in the last half century in the USA by an assault weapon or short barrel shotgun. Bet you can't.

Your friend is so physically and/or mentally incompetent he shouldn't have any firearm if he can't hit a target the distance of inside a residence with a shotgun.

Obviously your friend thinks all American soldiers are sadist, psychotic and sociopathic mass murderers in his belief that all of the American military and everyone in it would fight American citizens if there was a take-over of the government by a seditious group or a renegade military coup by some of the military. However, many anti-2Aers like your friend hate people in the military and claim they are all murderers like your friend does, so that is no surprise.

Your friend gave no reason for gun registration and background checks. No one yet can show that either would have stopped one shooting or one murder.

Again, your friend really is stupid and uninformed. You do not need an FFL to own a machine gun. You need permission from the FBI after paying a $200 fee and a 3 to 6 month waiting period, the machine gun registered in your name and special rules about it you must follow. The gun is not licensed. It is registered and it recorded the tax was paid. How do you debate an idiot who rants on false fact claims?

Your friend doesn't NEED freedom of speech. Your friend doesn't NEED to be able to vote. Your friend doesn't NEED a free press. Rights have nothing to do with "NEED." Your progressive Democratic fascist friend predictably wants the Bill Of Rights summarily erased in any way he doesn't like it.

Clearly, your friend has no problem with people being defenselessly raped, tortured, kidnapped, crippled for life, disfigured and murdered - but then most anti 2Aers don't care about death or victims. They only hate guns. Between a woman having a gun to scare off a would be assailant - or that woman kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered - he picks the woman's death. NOTHING would be more evil than her having a gun.

Of course, your friend didn't even HINT at ANY benefit of what he wants, because he asserts guns are demonically possessed and inherently evil merely by their existence. In debate, if you propose a change from the status quo you have the burden to prove a need for and benefit from the change. But fundamental rules of debate are way beyond you friend's intellectual capacity by his own words.

Your friend shouldn't have a gun. He admits he is so incompetent he couldn't hit a target with a shotgun at less than 10 yards. He is so uninformed and outright stupid he lacks the mental competency to have a gun and shouldn't be allowed to have a drivers license because he probably is going kill people with his car.

 

[DebateChallenge]

This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments

( copied with permission)


Leonidas Christian Mixon

“We have a gun problem and a bull**** problem in the United States. Let me start by saying I am a gun owner. I have been since I was 6. I’ve had jobs that required me to carry a weapon. I’ve been shot at more than once. I’ve disarmed people who were trying to kill me. This isn’t coming from someone who doesn’t understand guns. It’s precisely because I do understand them that I’m going to call out the bull**** that stops us from having the reforms to gun laws that we needed years ago. If you want to debate any of the points below, I have no problem.
These are simple facts.

1) I need an assault rifle for home defense.

No, you don’t. A short barreled shotgun is the best tool for home defense. And that only counts if you’re insanely proficient with it and you get incredibly lucky. The likelihood you will get the chance to use it is next to zero. If you do, you’re very likely to kill a member of your family accidentally. In a REAL altercation, you don’t get to choose your field of fire. It happens incredibly fast, usually in the dark. If you’re popping off with a rifle, you are going to hit things you don’t intend to. Guns are tools. Period. Assault Rifles are intended to be used on a battlefield. Battlefield tactics don’t work in your house. It’s a bull**** argument.

2) I need to protect myself from a tyrannical Government...

Holy **** that’s stupid. That idea was from a time when the state of war was much more level. It isn’t now. At all. If an armored transport shows up on your front lawn with a 50 cal on the roof, you and your AK are ****ing toast. Soldiers train, and their weapons are an extension of their body. You will instantly lose. And before you bring up guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq... you need a reality check. Those people were born in a country that was at war, on their soil, for their entire lives. You don’t compare to that on your best day. And they die in FAR greater numbers than they kill.

3) Gun registration, background checks, etc are a slippery slope to confiscation.

Bull****. We register cars. We have to prove proficiency to operate them. We are required to have insurance in the event we cause damage with them. It’s been that way for decades, and no one is “coming to take your car”. Making sure people have the barest minimum of responsibility doesn’t lead to loss. Fear of loss leads to fundraising and bull****. It’s not rational.

4) My gun is a right that can’t be modified.

Again, utter bull****. You can’t own a howitzer unless the barrel is full of concrete. You can’t own a cannon manufactured in the last century. You can’t own a fully automatic weapon without a FFL. That’s why those things are rarely used in crimes. And all of that is based on an amendment to our constitution that can be changed if we as a country see fit to do so. We have changed amendments before and we will again. If you don’t understand that you need a history lesson and a dictionary.

Creating common sense laws that put speed bumps in the way of lunatics helps. Every time. Automobile licenses, speed limits, etc don’t end accidents, but they make them less frequent and less deadly. It’s a proven concept. The time for bull**** excuses is over. It’s time to step up and take responsibility. **** this stupidity.”

Since your friend is so full of malarkey somebody would have to be really gullible to believe his claims about having jobs where he's carried guns, being in gunfights, and disarming people who were trying to kill him. With the various issues he addresses, his utter lack of knowledge when addressing each issue, shows just how much of an incompetent buffoon he is.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Well, I disagree vehemently on the short barreled shotgun thing but otherwise he makes decent points.

Are you kidding? There is so much ignorance in everything he says. And you would have to be very ignorant too if you think anything he says is decent.

 

[independentusa]

Well, I disagree vehemently on the short barreled shotgun thing but otherwise he makes decent points.

But as to overturning the 2A I am inclined to believe that won't ever happen. It is just one of those things we won't ever give up, and even if it were to be overturned, all you would wind up doing is creating the most massive underground black market and the most massive resistance movement ever seen. The only effect would be to criminalize millions of law abiding persons.
It would be a massive failure.

And yet, requiring some accountability from gun owners is sensible, although I would leave home handguns alone, and make things very minimal for the typical home protection handgun owner.

Actually I have read several articles that say a shotgun is best for home defense. This is as important for being able to hit the intruder and will also insure that the weapon will not penetrate the walls and possibly hit someone in another room, i.e., family member. That is what can happen if a high powered rifle or pistol is used.

 

[TurtleDude]

Actually I have read several articles that say a shotgun is best for home defense. This is as important for being able to hit the intruder and will also insure that the weapon will not penetrate the walls and possibly hit someone in another room, i.e., family member. That is what can happen if a high powered rifle or pistol is used.

That is akin to saying surgery is the best treatment for cancer.