IDEOLOGICAL WAR: GOING HAND TO HAND

Destroying "Gun Control"

Debating anti-self-defense advocates:

First, they are not "anti-gun". They are and should be labeled publicly as pro-rapist, sexist, racist, pro-criminal, anti-citizen, anti-self-defense. They are also historically ignorant, liars, against American traditions and culture.

Ask them inflamatory questions they must answer. Attack where they must defend. Then they are set up and you can move in for the kill. Keep asking questions until they walk into one of many traps. They are full of sh** and sooner or later they will step right into it and then we can heap it on. We must translate the truth about firearms ownership into emotionally immediate, searing images and "sound bites" that will stick in the public's mind and resonate with their heart. This is our advantage. They are better at the present time in such imagery, but their images and message are not backed by fact or truth. This is what is called propaganda, or well crafted lies designed to emotionally manipulate the audience. We can emotionally manipulate the audience, but with the truth. We don't want to just defensively and dryly argue with facts and statistics. We must be able to articulate the positive aspects of firearms ownership to the public in a meaningful way. Here's a sample. Imagine this is a public debate. We'll give them the first question.

Them: So, why are you against registration and licensing of handguns?

You: (With condesending skeptical smile, as though dealing with a crazy person) Isn't that a little farfetched? Do you really think it will work to try and have dangerous criminals license and register their handguns?

Them: No, No, of course not, I don't want to try and register criminals, I am talking about ah, er, honest citizens registering and licensing their handguns....(Oops. He may have realized he just stepped in it.)

You: So.... you want to control honest law abiding citizens owning handguns, but you don't care about criminals using guns against us? Ah, pardon me, but that sounds like alot of tax money and police time going to waste. What good will that do to control law abiding citizens, like our audience here, from owning guns for self defense? Don't they have that right? (Turn and gesture towards audience. You are building rapport) Any criminals out here have a handgun they would like to come forward and register? Actually, the Supreme Court once ruled that criminals are exempt from having to register their guns, because it would violate their 5th. amendment rights against self-incrimination.

Them: No, No, you are twisting this all around! By having registration and licensing of handguns, we will keep handguns out of the hands of criminals! Like the Brady bill, 400,000 guns were denied to criminals because of the Brady bill.

You: You mean, so criminals couldn't get a handgun the same way it's impossible for them to buy drugs from South America? (laughter from audience)

Them: 400,000! That's the fact! It's a fact. Many criminals were denied guns because of the Brady Bill.

You: Are you sure dangerous criminals were denied guns? My facts say most of them were denied for administrative reasons or were otherwise wrongly denied. Such as in the Emerson case in Texas, where a Dr. had a restraining order put on him during a bitter divorce case, and suddenly he was made a criminal for the guns he owned. Speaking of Doctors, I'm sure you know the AMA in 2000 issued a report that the Brady Bill had absolutely no effect on the murder rate at all. Do you know Sammy Gravano, the mob hit man, was once asked about gun control? He said it was a joke, that guys like him would always have gun, and if guns were banned, it would only mean he could count on helpless vicitms. He thinks the Brady Bill is a joke. Why are you taking it seriously? Are you familiar with U.S. history?

Them: We can't just let people own guns without some kind of control! You want anybody able to get a gun anywhere, at any time?

You: Are you familiar with U.S. history?

Them: U.S. history?

You: In 1894, Sears Roebuck advertised in it's catalogue over 80 different firearms of all sizes and shapes. They had many competitors like Montgomery Ward offering the same. They boasted that they would "ship guns anywhere to anyone". In 1894, there was no Brady Bill, no waiting period, no background checks...no gun control at all. (Pause dramaticly) Can anyone guess what the murder rate was for New York City in 1894? It was America's largest city. There was no Prozac, no welfare. The murder rate in New York City in 1894, for all causes, not just guns, was 37% less than in 1994, when it was practiclly illegal to own any kind of gun at all. Yet anyone anywhere could buy a gun without restriction.

Them: But todays modern assault weapons and high capacity magazines make guns much more dangerous!

You: You mean if you're shot in the chest with a 100 year old gun you'll be less likely to die? Seriously now....let's go back to 1836, 160 years and 7 generations ago. That's when Samual Colt got his first patent for a six shot revolver. In 1850 the first high capacity rifle was offered for sale. It was called the Henry. Civil War Union soldiers bought their own. The Confederates called it that "damn Yankee rifle you load on Sunday and shoot all week". In aimed fire, it has been shown to be not significantly different in speed than a semiauto AK military style rifle. It held 16 rounds of .44 caliber amunition. Two 6 shot revolvers added to that and you would have 28 shots almost as fast as you could pull the trigger. That's plenty for any criminal or mass killer in a workplace or school yard massacre.

Them: But that was then...society is more complex, has more problems...

You: So you agree that the American tradition of firearms ownership, the NRA, and over 65 million gun owners, are not the problem? Gun ownership itself is not a problem. Only .01% of firearms are used in crimes. For that matter, only .01% of military style weapons are used in crime. They image of drug dealers toting full auto weapons and uzi's is another dangerous myth created by Hollywood producers. In fact, how many people here know that in 1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an international study which stated that violence in the media was directly responsible for an additional 10,000 murders, 400,000 assaults, and 70,000 rapes every year?? There have been hundreds of other studies. Why haven't you heard of this? Because Hollywood pays off politicians like Bill Clinton who go after honest gun owners to avoid the media's guilt in creating murder and mayhem in our country. If you want to save lives, go after Hollywood, not after American traditions and our constitutional rights.

Them: Constitutional rights! Speaking of myths, the 2nd Amendment only guarantees the rights of states to have a National Guard.

You: Now, are you being ignorant, or hoping to deliberately lie to the audience about their heritage? Well, rather than argue back and forth about that, let's find out what the Founders actually said about that.

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense..."

-John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788)

-Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

-Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution" (1787) in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States (P, Ford, 1888)

-Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," Under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col 1

You: Should I go on? I have 4 pages of quotes from a dozen of the top political thinkers and leaders of the day. As you can see, they make the NRA look like girl scouts. They just fought a revolution. They knew all about power politics, that government will always seek more and more power. The Second Amendment is the ultimate check and balance. Without the Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights is just a peice of paper!

Them: That was 200 years ago! Times have changed! They didn't mean for everyone to have an AK-47!

You: The Centers for Disease Control statistics are interesting. over 10,000 people die every year from falling off roofs and ladders. Maybe only 77 died each year from military style rifles, and most of those were criminals killing criminals or justified self defense. Besides, are you saying the average citizen, like our audience, have become so stupid and irresponsible they can't be trusted with firearms anymore? You mean we have deteriorated mentally in 200 years? Even 30 years? I've already pointed out that high capacity, rapidly firing guns have been available for 150 years. So, who here is too stupid to learn how to safely handle a firearm? Anyone? Our ancestors could handle it, but we can't, so we should just give up our freedoms, let the government take care of us. Why don't we address the real issues? In prisons, which are incredibly restrictive, the inmates still manage to make weapons and actually kill eachother at a higher rate than in the general population. Mental patients aren't allowed to have pencils because they are too dangerous. Today we ban guns, tomorrow we ban pencils? You want to deprive these people of their inalieanable rights and powers because a temporary historical surge in criminals killing criminals?

Them: People are smarter now, we know we don't want or need killing weapons like guns anymore!

You: Really? 33 states recognize one's right to self defense. FBI statistics show that crime like rape and murder have gone down in those states. Professor John Lott even wrote a book about it, called "more guns, less crime". England and Australia disarmed their populations, and their gun crime rates have soared! So, would you prefer to have MORE women raped? More people murdered? I thought you were trying to save lives here.

Them: Those statistics are being disputed! John Lott is a tool of the gun lobby!

You: Maybe we don't need scientists. We can use our good old American common sense. Let's ask the audience. I don't believe people are stupider than they used to be. I believe in the average American citizen. So, everyone here smart enough to learn how to use a firearm safely? I'll bet yes. So how do you mug someone with a .45 automatic pointed at your face? How do you rape a woman with a .38 revolver pointed at your...When criminals are polled in prison, a majority state that if they thought a victim was armed, they avoided them and moved onto someone else. Get it? Are we able to understand this? Criminals, muggers, rapists, they don't want to be shot. If you have a gun, they'll avoid you. In fact, another scientist, professor Gary Kleck, reported that guns of all types are used to ward off criminal attack up to 2.5 million times a year. When a woman defends herself with a gun, the rapist loses 97% of the time. Studies have shown women are far less likely to be hurt when they defend themselves with a gun, than if they don't resist at all. Do you want women to be raped? Isn't self defense our most basic civil right?

Them: In a civilized society, that's what the police are for. We don't want to go back to Wild West! We don't want people shooting each other at traffic lights!

You: There you go again, insulting the average American. In the 33 states that have concealed carry, the safety record of the armed citizen is safer than that of the police. Aren't you being a little paranoid? Do you really think all your neighbors want to kill you? If they just had guns? And the Wild West actually had lower crime than today. Sure, there were you're high profile gangsters, like today, but in terms of interpersonal crime, it was safer. Don't you know the law? Let me tell the audience something important: Did you know that at the same time the anti-self defense folks are trying to take away your right to defend yourselves, that they don't want you to know the police have no legal obligation to protect you. That's right. All 50 states have laws on the books stating that the police only have a duty to protect society as a whole, not an individual. If they fail to protect you, you can't sue them. That's like saying if your doctor kills you, you can't sue him. But it's not the police's fault. They work hard. But they know it's impossible to be everywhere at once. They know that 95% of the time, they can only get there AFTER the crime has been committed. But where does that leave you, when these people have made it illegal to defend yourselves?

web hosting

dedicated servers

SSL Certificate

domain names

web hosting