12 votes

NeVer Trust Anyone Who Attempts To Disarm You!

*****

Topic:
GUN CONTROL: Seeking effective debate techniques that utterly obliterate the anti-gun argument.

*****

NeVer Trust Anyone Who Attempts To Disarm You!

Sometimes, I really gotta ask myself, how many people ever give that line much thought? Those are some powerful words and the reasons WHY they are should be self-evident to anyone.

MANY debates are won or lost just in the first opening paragraphs. Why is that? Because the opening lines are the foundation of the premise. Thus, be the saying, "A house not built on a solid foundation cannot stand."

With that said, make sure all your foundational claims are based on facts, at least to the best of your abilities. This is a work to find the shortest yet most powerfully-worded truths to base our case on for "The RIGHT To Keep and Bare Arms.

I don't know about you but I get lost in trying to remember 10,000 different gun contol come back lines to fit all applications so I try to remember the smallest, yet most powerful to keep things simple.

When dealing with the anti-gunner, maybe an easy opening line into a debate on the topic should be, something like:

"I believe in the 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms' because, if the time arises, I am 'morally obligated' to act to help defend myself, family and country against evil".

In my mind, this puts the anti-gunner on the defensive based on self-evident FACTS and forces them to deal with the "moral responsibility" side of the argument.

This is not to lay claim nor imply that you or I am morally superior. BUT it is to imply that the anti-gun crowd "lacks fortitude" in this area.

Thus, you can say that you see yourself as "morally obligated" and then conclude with "And you and everyone else are also."

Maybe some of you can improve on this, but the challange is to make it as powerful as possible in the fewest words as possible.

*****

Free People Have Guns. Slaves Don't.

*****

For more information to consider on debate tactics and what you can do about it, see:

GUN CONTROL: The Right Argument?
http://www.dailypaul.com/267887/gun-control-the-right-argument

The Time Is Now
http://www.dailypaul.com/267860/the-time-is-now

*****

THIS is a work-in-progress and may be updated from time to time in the neVer ending quest in 'up word reach' to acheive excellence.

This was originally posted under "How to Deal with the Anti-Gun Crowd," 12-24-12.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

NeVer Trust ANYONE Who Attempts To Disarm YOU!

Topic: People Who Vote Against My RIGHT To Self Defense.

*****

I vote for anyone who votes against RIGHTS to not have that right.

They need to put their gun where their mouth is.

They can get their rights back after they vote for their rights back.

Until then, they are not only a danger to themselves, but everyone else they attempt to inflict their ill will upon.

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

So here are the addresses and

So here are the addresses and phone number of NY Journal "calumnist" (one who propagates journalistic abuse) Dwight R. Worley who published all of the HOME ADDRESSES of Law Abiding Conceal Carry Gun Owners of the entire state of NY as well as the rest of the marxist swine at The Journal:

Dwight R Worley
23006 139 Ave
Springfield Gardens, NY 11413
...
But you might want to call him first to let him know you’ll be dropping in: (718) 527-0832

and here are the rest of the red diaper doper babies at
The Journal:

Journal News President:
---Janet Hasson, 3 Gate House Lane Mamaroneck, NY 10534 (914) 694.5204

Journal News President:
---Janet Hasson, 3 Gate House Lane Mamaroneck, NY 10534 (914) 694.5204

Editors:
---Cyndee Royle, 1133 Westchester Ave., Suite N110, White Plains, NY 10604, 914-694-9300
--Nancy Cutler 9 Woodwind Ln, Spring Valley, NY. (845) 354 3485

Parent company of The Journal News Gannett
-----CEO Gracia C Martore 728 Springvale Rd Great Falls, VA 22066 (703) 759 5954

The reporter on the story is:
--Dwight R Worley 23006 139 Ave Springfield Gardens, NY 11413 (718) 527 0832

Plz hit the share button on this. Don't let it get buried! Save a copy for when they re-set the comments.

RP R3VOLution

Bringing this to light......

Here's a little tid-bit that I feel very few people ever realized, so I thought I'd throw it out there, just so you could point it out to anyone who endorses confiscation if you should find yourself in a debate.

*****

Knowingly or not, -ANYONE- who endorses gun confiscation is a "collectivist".

WHY is that? The anti-gunner consciencely or subconsciencely knows that SOME GROUPS will remain armed, i.e. "police, armies & criminals". Thus, they are all about disarming only certain groups, i.e. You and me, Anyone who is not a member of police, armies & criminals.

*****

On a side note, most forest "rangers" are armed. I've also seen some long guns in fire trucks.

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

Take The High Ground

Ever notice that the anti-gunners will always attempt to start the gun debate from an intellectual or ideological perspective, NOT a moral one?

You got to ask yourself, "why is that?" Could it be because that they consciously know that they are weak on moral grounds?

They tend to know nothing about guns, yet they will always start out the debate with big sounding media generated, cherry-picked, buzz words, that they know they don't really understand.

Example:
Notice that they nearly always start out they're argument with the comment, "We live in a day and age where no one needs guns," followed by the words, "assult weapon, clip size, automatic, etc?"

They'll attempt to go round and round on THAT train so we need to get em off that track and bring it back to the moral grounds.

This is not easy, nor is it to claim or say that you nor I am morally superior. BUT it is to imply that they "lack fortitude" here, thus have a hard time going there. Again, why is that? You know the answer.

Let them know that you are on to them. Then let them know that you know that they are morally bankrupt in this area and if they are to really understand the topic fully and to appreciate the issue, and to debate it properly, they need to understand things from this side of the equation also.

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

It's a human right

My response starts at the micro level and grows. "A woman being raped has right to defend herself; a black Mano. the verge of bring lynched by a gang of racist thugs has a right to defend himself; an elderly gentleman has the right to defend himself and his elderly wife on the way to the store from young thugs. Human beings, regardless of what any power hungry politician says, is morally just in defending themselves. But in the end, the 2nd Amendment isn't about protecting from yourself from isolated violent crime. It was to acknowledge that a just and free people have a right and moral responsibility to defend themselves from a government that has grown oppressive.

______
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

In Recognition of......

In recognition of SELF PRESERVATION as not only a RIGHT, it is a NATURAL INSTINCT recognized by ALL CREATURES.

Thus the anti-gunner has NO EXCUSE to DISCOUNT nor EVADE that point!

It is SELF EVIDENT AND recognized by ALL of creation.

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

A New Way of Focusing this 'Debate'

A calm, matter of fact case needs to be made each and every time in some form or fashion, as I see it:

First, America is governed via a Constitution which has a Bill of Rights enumerating a few of countless fundamental natural-rights. One of most important of those fundamental-rights is the right to keep and bear arms, uninfringed.

Secondly, you can be emotional all you want, you can allow yourself to be manipulated into a frenzy of fear, loathing or anger directed towards disarmament by the government in its relentless aims to disarm the people.

That said, you must realize that there are millions of individuals, living quietly, in peace, wanting to be left alone to live their lives and who hold dear to the Constitution. Even more importantly, these people hold to the fundamental liberties that all free-men enjoy.

We happen to be discussing the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

Next, these millions of people will absolutely NOT allow themselves to be disarmed, despite your desires, fears, advocacy, or the actions of government which are contrary to the principles of individual liberty and to the text of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Amendment II was enumerated to absolutely provide 'the people' with the means to defend against tyranny. That means individual people, not government or state military or police, ma'am. Yes, ma'am, that means that we the people must have the means to defend, with force of arms, against tyranny in government and/or to throw off such government and institute new government.

It is that simple.

Next point:

It seems as if what you and those like you are advocating, is the exact scenario that Amendment II was enumerated to provide the means to prevent and to defend from. You are forcing it to become a reality.

It is that simple.

So, ma'am, if what you are asking for comes to pass, how many American men, women and children do you desire to see slaughtered in pursuit of your desires? Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions?

On top of that, it is very important for you to realize that these same good, decent, peaceful people who will refuse to be disarmed, will not quietly sit and await the agents of government to come and kill them or strip them of their only means to defend against tyranny.

These good Americans who understand and value liberty and who grasp the dirt-simple concept and intent of 'Liberties Teeth', well, they will shoot back and actually go on the offensive in defense of those liberties and our way of life, if that scenario is forced on them.

So, ma'am, how many police, military, government apparatchiks and others are you willing to see killed, on top of the numbers of slaughtered 'evil' radical people who simply refuse to be disarmed?

Well, how many dead Americans are acceptable to you in pursuit of your goals?

Anyone who attempts to illegally disarm me will find his head...

...blown completely off.

.

I once heard......

The old saying, "NeVer trust anyone who attempts to disarm you!"

Sometimes, I really gotta ask myself, do many really give that line much thought? Those are some powerful words and the reasons WHY they are should be self-evident to anyone.

I had a T-shirt made that say's that on it and more, (but it's better, for now that I don't go there).

Just hope the saying catches on.....

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

No one who attempts to disarm you trust you.

So why trust them ;)

HA!

Good point. I once heard it said that the only person I trust is me and you.

.....But, I'm not so sure about you ;).....

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

Duplicity is a confession.

How are you going to take my guns from me, smarty pants?

Joe

Right to Arms = Right to Self-Defense

It's as simple as that.

The right to guns is an extension of the right to self-defense.

I'll choose my method of self-defense and others can choose their own, thank you very much.

Anyone who is against self-defense is in favor of people being victims of rape, robbery, and murder.

As I wrote in another post:

Let's let the liberals explain why THEY are IN FAVOR of more crime.

Let them defend their position that they want MORE victims of rape, robbery, and murder.

I do NOT need to explain myself beyond self-defense. Are they AGAINST self-defense? Yes, they are if they are trying to stop people from defending themseselves. Why do they want MORE violent crime? Do they LIKE people being VICTIMS?

Put it back on them. They are the ones INITIATING FORCE against others. They are the ones who are acting and advocating IMMORAL ideas.

Re: Do they LIKE people being VICTIMS?

I think this is something most anti-gunners don't grasp.

Most that come from this mindset DON'T SEE HOW "WE PROTECT THEM".

THEY DON'T SEE HOW WE PROTECT THEY"RE RIGHTS.

They don't see how we protect they're right to free speech.

They don't see how we protect they're right to keep and bare arms.

They see the very people that protect them as the "dangerous ones".

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks