OmSigDAVID
Regular Member
imported post
HE WHO DEFINES THE ARGUMENT, in the first place,and who selects its nomenclature and semantics usually wins that argument. Most arguments are not won or lost upon the basis of sound and logical reasoning, but rather by the EMOTIONAL responses of the audience.
Accordingly, I suggest that in our writing we speak of the pro-freedom side of the debate and the anti-freedom side, or the suppressionist side of it.
Freely speak of government DISCRIMINATING as to which citizen can defend his life and who is screwed out of his constitutional right to defend his life from the violence of man or beast.
Instead of speaking of "strict" gun control, refer to "severe" or "oppressive" or "harsh" or "intimidating" gun control that results in effective loss of citizen's rights of self defense. Remember that "gun control" is victim disarmament.
Remember that guns are life-saving emergency equipment.
Remember that gun control is O.S.H.A. (US Labor Dept. Occupational Safety and Health Administration) for violent criminals protecting them on-the-jobfrom the defenses of their victims.
U can raise the question:
" If criminals are willing to ignore the laws against ROBBERY;
if criminals are willing to disregard the laws against MURDER,
HOW can we convince them to OBEY gun control laws ? "
U can refer to the plaintive and futile appeals for help from Kitty Genovese as she was being stabbed to death for about an hour, in NYC, when noone even called police. U can refer to Reginald Denny being stomped in the streets of California on national TV for maybe 45 minutes (??) with no help from police who fled the scene.
These are some of the possibilties.
Use them in good health and in freedom
David
HE WHO DEFINES THE ARGUMENT, in the first place,and who selects its nomenclature and semantics usually wins that argument. Most arguments are not won or lost upon the basis of sound and logical reasoning, but rather by the EMOTIONAL responses of the audience.
Accordingly, I suggest that in our writing we speak of the pro-freedom side of the debate and the anti-freedom side, or the suppressionist side of it.
Freely speak of government DISCRIMINATING as to which citizen can defend his life and who is screwed out of his constitutional right to defend his life from the violence of man or beast.
Instead of speaking of "strict" gun control, refer to "severe" or "oppressive" or "harsh" or "intimidating" gun control that results in effective loss of citizen's rights of self defense. Remember that "gun control" is victim disarmament.
Remember that guns are life-saving emergency equipment.
Remember that gun control is O.S.H.A. (US Labor Dept. Occupational Safety and Health Administration) for violent criminals protecting them on-the-jobfrom the defenses of their victims.
U can raise the question:
" If criminals are willing to ignore the laws against ROBBERY;
if criminals are willing to disregard the laws against MURDER,
HOW can we convince them to OBEY gun control laws ? "
U can refer to the plaintive and futile appeals for help from Kitty Genovese as she was being stabbed to death for about an hour, in NYC, when noone even called police. U can refer to Reginald Denny being stomped in the streets of California on national TV for maybe 45 minutes (??) with no help from police who fled the scene.
These are some of the possibilties.
Use them in good health and in freedom
David
