It bears repeating

I found this on another site, but it deserves to be anywhere and everywhere.

Mistakes We Make in the Gun Culture, or
How to Be a More Effective Advocate for Freedom
By John Ross

http://john-ross.net/mistakes.htm

Copyright 2003-2005 by John Ross. Electronic reproduction of this article freely permitted provided it is reproduced in its entirety with attribution given

This is a piece I wrote a couple years ago, and I still get regular requests for it. Might as well put it on Ross In Range.

One of the biggest mistakes that freedom advocates make is we often fail to take the moral high ground on freedom issues, and we let our enemies define the terms. This is a huge mistake. Never forget: We are in the right on this issue. We are on the side of the Founding Fathers. They are on the side of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and every other leader of an oppressive, totalitarian regime.

Let me give some common examples I’ve often heard when Second Amendment advocates debate gun control supporters:


THEY SAY: “We’d be better off if no one had guns.”

WE SAY: “You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns.” (FLAW: the implication here is that if you could succeed at eliminating all guns, it would be a reasonable plan.)

WE SHOULD SAY: “So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that’s unacceptable. Better we should require every citizen to carry a gun.”


THEY SAY: “Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don’t need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer--they’re only for killing people.”

WE SAY: “I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I’ve never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me blah blah blah.” (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)

WE SHOULD SAY: “Your claim that ‘they’re only for killing people’ is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high-capacity, military-type rifle or handgun is designed for conflict. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest-capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they’re good practice.”


THEY SAY: “If we pass this License-To-Carry law, it will be like the Wild West, with shootouts all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it.”

WE SAY: “Studies have shown blah blah blah” (FLAW: You have implied that if studies showed License-To-Carry laws equaled more heat-of-passion shootings, Right-To-Carry should be illegal.)

WE SHOULD SAY: “Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that’s not important. What is important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important than the Constitution, why don’t we throw out the Fifth Amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We’d catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?”


THEY SAY: “I don’t see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period.”

WE SAY: “It doesn’t do any good, criminals don’t wait five days, it’s a waste of resources blah blah blah.” (FLAW: You have implied that if waiting periods did reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)

WE SHOULD SAY: “Shall we apply your logic to the First Amendment along with the Second? How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review board before the news is reported? Wouldn’t that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people who already own a handgun tells me that it’s not about crime prevention, it’s about harassment. Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a ‘safe’ one with the government as chief nanny.”


THEY SAY: “In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have Atomic bombs.”

WE SAY: “Uh, well, uh...”

WE SHOULD SAY: “Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue--it’s in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 each had muskets, but not the large field pieces that fired exploding shells. In 2005, soldiers are each individually issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing free speech and freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV, satellite transmission, FAXes, and the Internet.”


THEY SAY: “We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these dangerous weapons.”

WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.

WE SHOULD SAY: “You know, driving is a luxury, whereas firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But let’s put that aside for a moment. It’s interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can at any age go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size you want, and you don’t need to do anything if you don’t use them on public property. No license at all. If you do want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This license is good in all 50 states. No waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property. Sounds great to me.”

FINAL COMMENT, useful with most all arguments:

YOU SAY: “You know, I’m amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything.”

THEY SAY: “Hunh?”

YOU SAY: “Well, passing this proposal won’t have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither George W. Bush nor Hillary Clinton is going to open up internment camps for Americans like Roosevelt did sixty-odd years ago. But think of your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn’t it possible that a person like that might be in control here some time in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him or her? If that does happen, do you really want your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them to have been stripped of it by you?

Let me know if any of these points make you more effective the next time a "gun control" advocate starts in on his favorite subject.

ANOTHER ONE

Add another failure to the gun control crowd. The shooting at NASA prove again the complete and utter failure of the gun control agenda and their "gun free zones" ANYONE who is stuck in one of these dangerous places should start trying to effect change in their environment...or find another job! The anti's again and again prove that their political position is more important to them than YOUR safety. There's no valid reason any longer to believe their outright LIES.
Check out the outright lies spewed by Adri Mehra "writing" in the Minnesota Daily:

"The slightly larger Glock 22 - so named for the number of bullets that its magazine can contain - is the single most popular police sidearm used in the United States, according to years of national survey data."
This load of CRAP is quoted directly from the article...now for the facts in the REAL world:

The Glock 22 is more likely than likely the pistol your local law enforcement officer carries in his duties. It's a .40 caliber pistol with a 15 round magazine capacity from the factory. A quick internet search would have told this hack the actual facts...but those don't make for good lies to cover his position of you and I are not to be trusted with our own safety.
In the sake of telling the TRUTH...you can purchase a extension kit to gain 5 more rounds...what's that...20? 21 if you top off the mag after chambering a round....still a round short from the 22 that Mehra claims. My guess is he saw a movie once with a glock looking pistol with the magic hollywood belt feed ammo supply. Someone with a total disregard of the facts should be fired...plain and simple, along with is editor. ANYONE who allowed this piece of trash to waste ink is just a culpable in this travesty of journalistic integrity.

If Mehra were to happen by this little post...you sir are a liar...plain and simple. You distort easily found facts to fit your twisted views on the world and pass them off as gospel. You deserved to be fired and exposed to the Minnesota readers as the fraud you really are.

1st TFA meeting for Nashville

I believe we finally got a TFA chapter going for the Nashville area last night. We met over at APPS (Academy of Personal Protection and Security) to start the chapter. For those that don't know, The TFA is the Tennessee Firearms Association. Founded by Buford Tune and John Harris. There are mostly responsible for the changes for the better in Tennessee's concealed weapons permits. John is up on Capitol Hill when the state house/senate is in session fighting for YOUR right to carry a concealed weapon. The Nashville chapter NEEDS members and support. The only cost (it looks like so far) will be the cost of your food if we meet at a restaurant somewhere and your membership in the Tennessee Firearms Association. Buford told us last night that we can meet in his classroom as long as he doesn't have a class scheduled.

Right now the two most important gun related issues on the hill right now is the removal of the stupid ban on carrying your weapon in a restaurant that serves alcohol for on site consumption...even if you aren't consuming and the bill removing the restrictions for carrying in a state park, office building, etc.
As for the restaurant carry bill, there is some debate on how the current law is written, there is no explusion for police. It could be argued rather successfully that they might in fact be breaking the law by NOT disarming when stopping for lunch/dinner.
The law states:
a) It is an offense for a person to possess a firearm within the confines of a building open to the public where liquor, wine or other alcoholic beverages, as defined in § 57-3-101(a)(1)(A), or beer, as defined in § 57-6-102(1), are served for on premises consumption.

(b) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to a person who is:

(1) In the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer, or is employed in the army, air force, navy, coast guard or marine service of the United States or any member of the Tennessee national guard in the line of duty and pursuant to military regulations, or is in the actual discharge of duties as a correctional officer employed by a penal institution; or

(2) On the person's own premises or premises under the person's control or who is the employee or agent of the owner of the premises with responsibility for protecting persons or property.


[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1990, ch. 1029, § 4; 2001, ch. 345, § 1.]

Poorly written law. No one in their right mind would expect a cop to leave his weapon in his car...but lunch, off duty, the law is written so poorly that one could make a case that the cops were breaking the law just by having lunch someplace that doesn't ask " do ya want fries with dat?"

32 Failures of gun control

I've been following the VT tragedy pretty much since the start. The more I heard about what had happened the more pissed I became. Not just at the shooter, he's a piece of trash coward who merits no more mercy than a rabid skunk. No, my anger is directed at those close minded people who like high on their ivory towers surrounded by gates and armed guards who decide that THEY know better than the common man and push for more gun control. The senseless killing of 31 VT students shows yet again the complete failure of gun control laws. The brady bunch and their ilk sit back attempting to use each and every incident like this to push for more bullshit gun control. IT DOESN’T WORK! When will people wake up to this simple friggin fact of life. If you make it known that there are no guns legally in a place…that place will be much easier to do bad things in. The bad guys don’t really CARE that VT was a “gun free zone” It became a slaughterhouse. Anyone who thinks guns are the problem is pretty much deluded. The problem isn’t the fact that we as American citizens have access to guns. The problem is the anti gun crowd has a faster moving PC machine. All the hand wringing and calls for swift action to play on raw emotion is their stand operating procedure. They push and push for more gun control.

The VT campus was the world the anti gunners was ALL of us to live in. Free of guns..well..except for the one welded by evil. The law abiding students and faculty were left defenseless, waiting on the campus police to come and save them cowering in rooms, waiting to be slaughtered.

In 2006, Virginia had the chance to change the law..it was killed in committee. And I quote

Jan 21, 2006
HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee.
By Greg Esposito 381-1675

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.
House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.
The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill's defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
Del. Dave Nutter, R-Christiansburg, would not comment Monday because he was not part of the subcommittee that discussed the bill.
Most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security upon entering campus. The legislation was designed to prohibit public universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."
The legislation allowed for exceptions for participants in athletic events, storage of guns in residence halls and military training programs.
Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. Some gun owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns on campus.
In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities.

They had a chance to give those students a fighting chance…and they failed. They let their innate fear of guns over ride common sense, and now they must live with those decisions.

The blood of those 31 students rests squarely on the hands of those who took away their right to self protection