In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Can You Post A Better Argument?
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
I have always felt that, when presenting your own argument on ANY subject, that for many reasons the shortest, simplest and most uncomplicated argument is by far the best. One reason for this feeling is that your opponent will probably not give your argument much time or attention. With that in mind, I would like to post what is the best I can do in regards to shortest, simplest and most uncomplicated argument in favor of gun rights. To help me "fine tune" my approach is anyone willing to show me how to improve on my "argument"?
#1 concept: Strident anti-gunners are really just anti-gun in regards to the general public. Proof of this is that even Sarah Brady would be quick to summon a police officer armed with a gun if she had a home intruder.
#2 Concept: If the criminal element could vote as a block would they vote for their intended victims, the general public, to be able to have guns or not?
#3 Concept: Since robbers, murderers and rapist have already decided to break the law, is there really any gun law that could ever be passed that would control them?
#4 Concept; When any law is passed, do the framers of that law really expect anyone but the already law-abiding to obey that law?
#5 Concept: If the smugglers can smuggle truckloads of drugs and illegal aliens into the U.S., would the criminal element really be deprived of gun ownership if a nationwide ban on guns was imposed?
#6 Concept: With a gun a man/woman has a good chance to defend themselves and their family from from unprovoked attack. And this defense can even be done from a distance sufficent to keep the defenders from being overwhelmed.
#7 Concept: NO ONE can guarantee that there will never be a breakdown of society, even if only a brief and temporary one. If that happens it will draw out the criminals and those with supressed criminal tendencies like throwing raw meat into a sea full of sharks. If that happens and the busy authorities are unable to protect you, just how the heck are you supposed to protect yourself and family if you aren't "allowed" to own a gun?
I would appreciate it if anyone cares to post any errors or mistakes in logic I might have so I can in the future present a better argument to the local anti-gun newspaper, etc.
if they don't want us to have guns for self defense, what do they want us to have?
#1 concept: Strident anti-gunners are really just anti-gun in regards to the general public. Proof of this is that even Sarah Brady would be quick to summon a police officer armed with a gun if she had a home intruder.
#2 Concept: If the criminal element could vote as a block would they vote for their intended victims, the general public, to be able to have guns or not?
#3 Concept: Since robbers, murderers and rapist have already decided to break the law, is there really any gun law that could ever be passed that would control them?
#4 Concept; When any law is passed, do the framers of that law really expect anyone but the already law-abiding to obey that law?
#5 Concept: If the smugglers can smuggle truckloads of drugs and illegal aliens into the U.S., would the criminal element really be deprived of gun ownership if a nationwide ban on guns was imposed?
#6 Concept: With a gun a man/woman has a good chance to defend themselves and their family from from unprovoked attack. And this defense can even be done from a distance sufficent to keep the defenders from being overwhelmed.
#7 Concept: NO ONE can guarantee that there will never be a breakdown of society, even if only a brief and temporary one. If that happens it will draw out the criminals and those with supressed criminal tendencies like throwing raw meat into a sea full of sharks. If that happens and the busy authorities are unable to protect you, just how the heck are you supposed to protect yourself and family if you aren't "allowed" to own a gun?
I would appreciate it if anyone cares to post any errors or mistakes in logic I might have so I can in the future present a better argument to the local anti-gun newspaper, etc.
if they don't want us to have guns for self defense, what do they want us to have?
Comments
#8 Concept. For those who think it is ok to outlaw handguns because their rifles & shotguns will always be safe, consider this: A hacksaw can quickly turn many rifles and shotguns into a handgun and when that starts happening say goodby to rifles and shotguns.
#9 Concept: Once it is willingly accepted that the gun banners can limit you to a ten round magazine, there is NOTHING to stop them from limiting you to a one or two round magazine.
#10 Concept: Once it is willingly accepted that the gun banners can ban a gun simply because of the way it looks (.223 AR-15 bad, .223 Ruger Mini-14 good) then at any point the gun banners chose they can decide they don't like the way your .223 single shot rifle looks.
if they don't want us to have guns for self defense, what do they want us to have?
Regards,
************************
Death to Tyrants!!!
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
I might not always tell you the truth, but I will never lie to you!
If you know it all; you must have been listening.WEAR EAR PROTECTION!
Death to Tyrants!!!
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
I have always felt that, when presenting your own argument on ANY subject, that for many reasons the shortest, simplest and most uncomplicated argument is by far the best. One reason for this feeling is that your opponent will probably not give your argument much time or attention. With that in mind, I would like to post what is the best I can do in regards to shortest, simplest and most uncomplicated argument in favor of gun rights. To help me "fine tune" my approach is anyone willing to show me how to improve on my "argument"?
#1 concept: Strident anti-gunners are really just anti-gun in regards to the general public. Proof of this is that even Sarah Brady would be quick to summon a police officer armed with a gun if she had a home intruder.
#2 Concept: If the criminal element could vote as a block would they vote for their intended victims, the general public, to be able to have guns or not?
#3 Concept: Since robbers, murderers and rapist have already decided to break the law, is there really any gun law that could ever be passed that would control them?
#4 Concept; When any law is passed, do the framers of that law really expect anyone but the already law-abiding to obey that law?
#5 Concept: If the smugglers can smuggle truckloads of drugs and illegal aliens into the U.S., would the criminal element really be deprived of gun ownership if a nationwide ban on guns was imposed?
#6 Concept: With a gun a man/woman has a good chance to defend themselves and their family from from unprovoked attack. And this defense can even be done from a distance sufficent to keep the defenders from being overwhelmed.
#7 Concept: NO ONE can guarantee that there will never be a breakdown of society, even if only a brief and temporary one. If that happens it will draw out the criminals and those with supressed criminal tendencies like throwing raw meat into a sea full of sharks. If that happens and the busy authorities are unable to protect you, just how the heck are you supposed to protect yourself and family if you aren't "allowed" to own a gun?
I would appreciate it if anyone cares to post any errors or mistakes in logic I might have so I can in the future present a better argument to the local anti-gun newspaper, etc.
if they don't want us to have guns for self defense, what do they want us to have?
Hey, Guys: I just received a UPS package (half afraid to sign for it, didn't recognize the Shipper and expected ATF to come stoming in), but, lucky me, it's from Henry Rifle company (Brochures, but you never can tell). Says here: "The original Engraved Henry given too Lincoln is a National Treasure"! [;)] I reckon Feinstein's CCW weapon may be a National Treasure someday? Opps! Henry's "Survival Rifle" looks awfully, Assautly to me. (hope they consulted Hillary, because "Henry's" are made in Her home State???????)
Ronnie G. Perkins