TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:I can't read that tripe. This is the ONLY thing that will change their opinion:

1. To be trapped in a situation when seconds count and the police (who are NOT constitutionally obligated to protect them... see DeShaney v. Winnebago County, Warren v. District of Columbia and Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales) are minutes away;
2. in a situation in which a gun in their hand is the only thing that would save them;
3. to not have one available to them directly because of some crap legislation that they supported;
4. to make the cognitive connection between their previous legislative agenda and their current circumstances;
5. to despair at their own folly;
6. and to be rescued by a regular citizen 3rd party with a gun in hand.

Nothing else will work. Of course, it will require that a significant number of these foolish and feckless airheads die because there was no such 3rd party present and/or available (present ≠ available, since the 3rd party has free will in the matter) at the time to haul their stupid chestnuts out of the fire. But maybe if they either die or are rescued in about equal parts, the survivors will begin to change their minds. Or not. That kind of fecklessness tends to be irredeemable.

Yet if you were the one to save them TAM, and you made the attacker deceased, he/she might be mad at you for killing them. Better yet, they might sue you to pay for their mental therapy crap because they were traumatized by having to witness you killing somebody. Am I being pessimistic, or just realistic?

Maybe we should push a bill for if the person we saved is ungrateful, we can return them to the situation we saved them from.

philip964 wrote:

Poster on Redit gun control site needs help with his gun control argument for an up coming debate.

I was banned a year ago from the site for suggesting Mexico was a good example of successful gun control laws.

Here is an argument from that link: (In red is my response to it now.)



Here are some common pro gun arguments and my rebuttals.

The 2nd amendment shall not be infringed

The entire constitution is subject to change. That is literally the entire point of the constitution.
If the entire constitution is subject to be changed, then why have a constitution if we can change it to something else? Since it is supposedly meant to be changed, then are it's statements irreverent? Such as our other rights? Can we just change those too? They just don't like the 2nd amendment.

We need guns to protect us against tyranny.

There is no reason to ever believe that the US will become a tyranny. We elect people into power. A tyrant would never make it into office, unless that is the will of the people. Also the government branches have checks and balances to make sure no branch becomes too powerful. So it is idiotic to think that the only thing stopping us from tyranny is private gun ownership. After all the government have access to an army which has you out gunned, trained, and organized.
So as long a we will something, it will not be so? I doubt that any of our democratic governments we have created would ever be taken into tyranny, since the people would have to will it, right? WRONG.

Second note, "After all, the government have access to an army which has you out gunned, trained, and organized." That says it for me. Essentially he is saying, the government has you out gunned already, so give up your only defense to the government, because you will lose. But by the way, the government wouldn't do anything like that anyway, so because they will, give up your guns.

Law abiding citizens shouldn't have to suffer because of criminals.

Yes they should. A lot of guns used in crimes comes from "law abiding citizens". Also just because you are law abiding doesn't mean you should be allowed to own a gun.
And a "Lot" of guns do not. If law abiding citizens "should" suffer according to you, then please be our example as to why and how we should suffer. You want to be protected by a gun, but have others carry the burden. You promote your so called "gun violence" by enforcing "gun control."

If all law abiding citizens turn in there guns then just the criminals will be armed, criminals don't follow laws anyways.

By this logic, why have laws at all. Also criminals gets guns because of the lax gun laws in this country and availability period. If less guns were in circulation then the prices of guns on the black market will sky rocket and the police will continue to confiscate guns. Eventually they will be weeded out. So short term pain, long term gain.
You contradict yourself. You admit that only the criminals would be armed, and for a period, all will suffer, but you hope that in the future there will be a gain. I'm certain countries like Australia will testify as to how well (Sarcasm) this concept is working.

I need guns to protect my family.

This is an appeal to emotion. Also there are far more efficient ways of safeguarding your home. Get an reinforced door and decorative window bars and no one is getting in your house.
So a reinforced door and window bars are the solution? That doesn't work to begin with, let alone that only covers being in a locked up secured home living in fear with criminals running rampant outside. Forbid having to go anywhere, because then you are just out of luck and subject to possible death, because that's just the cost of things. If that was all people needed to be safe, then why are people not currently safe? Your solution is already available, and not working.

The only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

Here is this argument destroyed by a tactical expert: http://www.thenation.com/article/combat ... r-fantasy/
From the article itself:

EDITOR'S NOTE: The original story identified a source as a combat veteran and former Navy SEAL. A records search has since revealed that he significantly exaggerated his military record. His comments have been removed from the article, and the headline has been changed. We apologize to our readers.

Being that he as already lied, deceived, and exaggerated, should this source really be acceptable to begin with? I think not. The article is filled with "I think" and the word think is used 8 times. They are talking solely about whom they consider untrained wahoos, and use their unrealistic opinion to say that personal self defense is unrealistic, PERIOD. Yet they refer to those with training, especially prior military and LEO's being able to protect themselves. So even though they admit that a LEO or service member can defend themselves appropriately, they maintain that guns are bad, and even those that CAN defend themselves according to their article, should be disarmed for the good of the people. If irrelevant contradictory information is the only way you can argue your lies, you've already been had. Typical Leftist garbage.