Old Virginia Joe
Regular Member
As I think about how to debate for guns being allowed in church, I just thought of this strategy. Maybe someone else has already used it. When speaking with an anti-2A person, ask them to imagine this hypothetical scenario:
You, who thinks guns should NOT be allowed in a church, are sitting in church one day, when a killer, who has broken a multitude of gun "laws" already, comes in heavily armed, blocks the doors, and begins to shoot, one by one, the people sitting defenseless, in the pews. As you await, terrified, you happen to notice, that somehow, there is a plain, simple, loaded gun on the seat next to you. If you point and pull the trigger, it will shoot out a bullet. Would you pick it up, and try to neutralize the killer, or, due to your principled belief in being disarmed in church, opt to leave the gun there, untouched, and await the execution of your friends and finally yourself? There are only these two options available. I cannot imagine an honest person claiming he would not shoot the killer. If he will admit that, then he must admit he is a terrible hypocrite. Preach one thing, and yet do the opposite.
If we were to use this scenario, wouldn't it make at least the honest antis admit their hypocrisy? This same picture can be used for those opposing guns at the university environs. I suggest 2A politicians use this point in chamber debate. In campaign advertising. Any thoughts?
You, who thinks guns should NOT be allowed in a church, are sitting in church one day, when a killer, who has broken a multitude of gun "laws" already, comes in heavily armed, blocks the doors, and begins to shoot, one by one, the people sitting defenseless, in the pews. As you await, terrified, you happen to notice, that somehow, there is a plain, simple, loaded gun on the seat next to you. If you point and pull the trigger, it will shoot out a bullet. Would you pick it up, and try to neutralize the killer, or, due to your principled belief in being disarmed in church, opt to leave the gun there, untouched, and await the execution of your friends and finally yourself? There are only these two options available. I cannot imagine an honest person claiming he would not shoot the killer. If he will admit that, then he must admit he is a terrible hypocrite. Preach one thing, and yet do the opposite.
If we were to use this scenario, wouldn't it make at least the honest antis admit their hypocrisy? This same picture can be used for those opposing guns at the university environs. I suggest 2A politicians use this point in chamber debate. In campaign advertising. Any thoughts?