My first run in with an anti. Internet "debate"

Wonderful thing about our system of highways, that if a person from Canada does not like how we do things they can drive back to Canada.

When I debate anti's, I usually just start quoting court cases, quoting the founders, and giving as many facts as possible.

For example, I recently debated an anti about assault weapons. He said that he didn't want to ban guns, despite what conservatives are saying. Then, of course, his friend contradicted his statement by suggesting that assault weapons be banned. This was my reply:


"I understand the point. The problem is that gun bans are often included in the proposals. Perhaps not for simple guns; but certainly for many standard capacity magazines and sporting rifles that those of us in the gun community enjoy.

And, in case you're wondering, no, I don't think high capacity magazines or “assault” rifles should be banned. Why? Because doing so would detract from the true meaning of the second amendment.

Many believe that the second amendment is for hunting or sporting. The problem is that such is not the case. Back when the second amendment was written, hunting was a given and a survival necessity. The true meaning of the second amendment can be found in the Declaration of Independence: “…Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

What I am about to say is not very popular, whether among Democrats or Republicans. But, many of our founders believed that Americans should keep arms to be able to, as a last resort, resist governmental tyranny. Thomas Jefferson: “The strongest reason for the people to maintain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to resist tyranny in government.” Taking “assault” weapons away would prevent the American people from being able to do so effectively. Patrick Henry: “Guard with jealous attention the Public Liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that Jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.” When Americans give up the right to bear arms, even fractionally, they lose their ability to exercise the true meaning of the second amendment.

Now, the argument can be made that perhaps this “meaning” should no longer be part of public policy. If so, then I would suggest proposing a constitutional amendment and getting 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree. Until then, this is the true meaning of the second amendment. And, banning “assault” weapons or high capacity magazines would take away from it.

By the way, I'm not advocating anything. I'm just presenting some historical facts."


Then, of course, one of his friends chimed in and gave the argument that the 2nd amendment applies only to the militia and not me and my "buddies from the gun show". I countered that (1) according to Federal law (U.S.C. Title 10, Section 311), as an able-bodied male age 17-45, I am in the militia, and (2) the militia clause is only an explanatory clause and does not affect the operative clause "shall not be infringed.

sudden valley gunner said:

I don't like violence so I must hate weapons.

Click to expand...

Speaking for myself, I carry a gun because I don't like violence. I think many of us here feel the same way-the very idea of an openly carried firearm is its potential to prevent or diffuse situations that could lead to violence.

That's a point that's really lost on most antis!

bunnspecial said:

Speaking for myself, I carry a gun because I don't like violence. I think many of us here feel the same way-the very idea of an openly carried firearm is its potential to prevent or diffuse situations that could lead to violence.

That's a point that's really lost on most antis!

Click to expand...

I am much the same in that respect.

To not have another post
'--------
I've noticed many more antis popping up. One was telling me that there is no reason for anyone to own an M4 Assault rifle. I told her that the rifle used was not an assault rifle as it did not have a semi-auto to full-auto selection.

She told me that the media called it an assault rifle and so it was an assault rifle.

Then claimed that it was a soldier's job to defend the people of this country. I explained that no, I only swore to up hold and defend the constitution of the united States.

Ugg The stupids are coming out of the woodwork really badly now.

Ask any Canadian if they have violent crimes committed with guns up in the Great White North. Ask them how could that be given the restrictions placed on gun ownership in Canada. Then ask them, and this is the tough one, if cops should be the only ones to have guns outside of the home, where are the cops when they are most needed. Finally, ask them what would they rather have available in a situation such as the school shooting, or walking down the street with their family, if the cops are not available, a handgun or a cell phone.

OC for ME said:

Ask any Canadian if they have violent crimes committed with guns up in the Great White North. Ask them how could that be given the restrictions placed on gun ownership in Canada. Then ask them, and this is the tough one, if cops should be the only ones to have guns outside of the home, where are the cops when they are most needed. Finally, ask them what would they rather have available in a situation such as the school shooting, or walking down the street with their family, if the cops are not available, a handgun or a cell phone.

Click to expand...

I live across the border from Vancouver B.C. from the area known as Surrey. For a while a few years ago there was at least a murder a weak, by a gun. Many Canadians said it was our fault for having lax gun laws. Not their fault for disarming their law abiding citizenry.

Statistics showed that banning guns did nothing to change the suicide rate in Canada.

Anti's don't seem to have the capability to reason.

bunnspecial said:

Speaking for myself, I carry a gun because I don't like violence. I think many of us here feel the same way-the very idea of an openly carried firearm is its potential to prevent or diffuse situations that could lead to violence.

That's a point that's really lost on most antis!

Click to expand...

Exactly it is simple logic. And for them to assume violence because of an inanimate object is ridiculous.