In December 2006, a mentally ill man murdered marketing maven Elliot Fineman’s son. Elliot then founded the National Gun Victim’s Action Council [motto above] “as a promise to the hundreds of thousands of gun victims, survivors and their families to change the culture of violence in America.” Specifically, the gun culture. Make the jump for the NGVAC’s gun control wish list. Cliff Notes: universal background checks for all firearms sales and transfers and gun bans in “restaurants, bars, schools, sporting arenas, workplace parking lots, airports, churches, national parks, onboard Amtrak trains – to name a few.” Elliot will debate RF tomorrow afternoon (Thursday) at 6pm EST. Program title: “It’s the Guns, Stupid!” Subject: CT confiscation. Click here to listen live via 1480 WPWC (We Act Radio) in Washington, DC. Click here to listen live via YouTube. If you want to help RF by supplying some pro-gun bullet points, please post them below. We’ll have a link to the finished product after the show . . .
Is the text from this going to be posted here if we can’t follow it live?
Get ’em R.F.
Exactly what I came here to post. Go get ’em Robert.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Set ’em straight, R.F.
It was mentioned that you can post helping hints, so I hope this helps:
Laws don’t magically force you to follow them, you choose to follow them. Laws simply tell you what actions will get you nicked. Criminals can choose not to follow them. There are laws telling you that you’ll get nicked if you carry a gun in designated areas, and criminals can easily choose not to follow them. Therefore;
GUN FREE ZONES DO ABSOLUTELY THE SQUARE ROOT OF F**K ALL!
Don’t forget we’re a nation of law. There is no “precrime” and if not specifically prohibited, you’re free to act as you wish. This, however, will never stop those that ignore the law or are above it.
RF,
I assume you have studied, taken to heart, and improved on Ben Shapiro’s takedown of Piers Morgan and watched his video on his 10 rules of winning a debate with a liberal.? In short do not argue his list…bring your own points to make him defend your arguments.
http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/politics/video-ben-shapiro-on-winning-debates-with-liberals/
A caveat, as you know Shapiro isn’t perfect. He stumbled by relinquishing the right of automatic ownership. The other flaw was that he didn’t have a great answer for “why do you need an AR with large capacity magazine?”
I know you probably don’t need that answer but here is my cliff notes answer.
1) Every SWAT team raid you see where a dozen cops are going after one bad guy inside a building they are nearly universally carrying an AR
2) The LEO/SWAT community has decided that an AR is the best tool to increase their chance for survival
3) They have many advantages over the bad guy due to their numbers and training but they don’t carry low capacity firearms, but rather an AR
4) So now John Q Public wakes up in the middle of the night because he hears an unknown number of BG’s breaking into his house
5) Why shouldn’t that citizen be allowed to use the universally accepted best tool to defend his life and family with an AR? Shouldn’t the citizen have the same right to optimize his chance of survival especially when he is in a bad position of reacting to an unknown bad guy force?
6) Has there ever been a gunfight where the winner says “Gee I wish I had less ammo?”
Shapiro talked to fast. Implies a sense of urgency. Contrast him with the late William F. Buckley, Jr. sitting back full of confidence, and asking very short but spear sharp pointed questions. Made everyone else look like fools.
Buckley argued in the era of 60 minute intellectual discussions. That is mostly long gone. Shapiro understands that CNN airtime is treated like liquid gold and you have to get your points in as quickly as possible and ideally without taking a breath which would allow you lie-spewing leftist opponent a chance. Even though he talked fast his ideas and points were simple to digest.
You can’t get a more pointed spear then the first sentence out of Shapiro’s mouth saying that Morgan was standing on the graves of the victims of SH. It was a devastating punch to the face and Morgan was on his heels the entire show.
I’ve see Shapiro talk much slower in discussion forums that have allowable time. He adapts for the environment, another trait that is admirable.
Gun free zones have never prevented a single act of gun violence.
Nor as having liability insurance on your car prevented a fatal collision. Don’t even see where they are coming from on that one, in particular.
There is nothing to see, it is a way to make firearm ownership more difficult. No more, no less
My question is always, who gets the pay out?
Insurance is for accidents, not intentional acts, if you knowingly shoot someone that’s not an accident.
And, if it was an accident, you could still get sued.
It’s not about insurance coverage, it’s about increasing the cost of gun ownership.
Their “sane” gun laws are bad and they should feel bad.
1) Illegal to implement due to FOPA, Firearms Owners Protection Act.
2) Tech doesn’t even exist. Current tech only uses watches or some such nonsense.
3) So if a child breaks into a safe, I can be held responsible?
4) Guess due process is overrated. Taking away rights via a secret government list is tyrannical.
5) That darn internet, letting people buy guns without background checks. Except new purchases must go through FFL dealer. And private parties meet in person. Hand wringing nonsense.
6) LOL at “to name a few”. They don’t want anyone carrying anywhere. Might as well cop to it, NGVAC.
None of those are sane and prove the guy who wrote them up is likely not all that sane himself.
Hell, yeah.
Yeah, those are sane gun laws…if you reside in Belleview mental hospital. I don’t think they can quite grasp the term “self defense” yet.
I commented on this to RF recently and will say it here as well – not one single item on this gun control/civilian disarmament wish list is NOT a violation of the Second Amendment. Any discussion of these points other than to point out their prima facie unconstitutionality is to fall victim to their red herring debate tactics.
If the antis really believe all of these points are “reasonable” their ONLY legal option is to promote the repeal of the Second Amendment.
Even in CA law, with the change made last year, the law only holds you liable if you knew or reasonably should have known that child may gain access and the gun was loaded and the gun was neither in a safe or with a trigger lock. It specifically does not hold you accountable if, e.g., a 12 yr old trespasses onto your property and gains access.
So unless you have kids or are hosting kids, and leave a loaded handgun without a trigger lock out of a lock box, and do not have it on your person or within your reach, you aren’t liable (criminally at least).
Even CA saw the stupidity of requiring more than that (for that matter the old law and the new differ only in that under the old law you were only liable if all of those conditions were true AND the child actually did gain access to said gun and did something bad with it. Now you could be held without that actually happening, but that is true even in Texas and it is not enforceable)
And in anycase, you are not held for the crime they committed, but a lesser charge of negligence.
I don’t see this going anywhere
What part of “shall not be infringed” is difficult to comprehend? Guns are not cars, even though cars are involved in more deaths while being operated by people, so the entire registration/insurance argument is moot.
No guns = no mass murder lie. There have been several mass stabbings in China. Considering the recentness and scope of the last mass stabbing, they will probably try to avoid bringing it up.
Sane gun laws:
“We want MAGIC!”
We need to talk about your definition of “sanity”.
“We’re done asking.”
Same here. Your move.
same thing crossed my mind.
What, are they going to start shoooting?
I’m done listening. Your turn to “compromise”.
I would really really REALLY like the thought of disarming homosexuals, who are in very much need of the 2nd amendment, to be brought up.. Just to see how badly this guy bumbles when he runs into a brick wall he cant climb. Please, PLEASE squeeze something about this in there.
That should gum them up. Also ask them about abused women; Sunday is International Women’s Day after all.
The typical response from gun prohibitionists is that gun ownership increases a woman’s risk of death. It’s a fatalistic and anti-feminist stance that women should find highly offensive (it’s reminiscent of the “relax and try to enjoy it” advice), but I often hear it presented as fact.
Don’t forget low income people who live in bad neighbourhoods. Who can’t afford “smart” guns/licensing and need protection from local gangs.
Prediction: “Move to a better neighborhood” – heard this one several times before.
ah, the money, I mean lure of victimization . . . . http://stephenewright.com/fromthebluff/2009/04/09/the-power-of-the-victim-exploiting-pain-for-politics/
maybe some facts on his son’s killer:
http://sdnews.com/bookmark/300989-Manhunt-underway-for-Extraordinary-Desserts-murder-suspect (oh look, guns not allowed in California)
http://www.10news.com/news/victim-s-family-looks-on-as-cafe-shooter-sentenced (Nice quote from the other guy shot along with Fineman’s son, and I quote “Unfortunately people need to be more vigilant about their safety when they go out in public, Koveleski said. “It’s all about urban survival,” he said, urging families to be aware of their surroundings so “cowards like Garbarini will have less of a chance to sneak up on you.””)
More details about the incident – essentially, the shooter was mad he was asked to leave for “staring” at the victims. . . . . http://crimeshots.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4974
yep – that’s how you fix the problem. Make another law to require an unemployed homeless guy register his firearm.
or maybe we should ban homeless people living out of shitty Toyota pickups?
or maybe we should ban popular dessert cafes, since they serve no purpose but make you fat?
. . . or maybe we should ban homeless people living out popular dessert cafes. Because I really hate that.
shhh don’t give them ideas, they’re already after my soda!
So violence like assault and battery, stabbing, beatings, sucker punches, strangling, vehicular assault are all OK? Fighting because someone looked at you wrong or dissed you is not part of our culture of violence? Good to know.
Ask him what other rights he wants people on the No-Fly list to be deprived of, since they’re obviously soooooo dangerous.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/02/no-fly-coverup/
How Obama Officials Cried ‘Terrorism’ to Cover Up a Paperwork Error
Damn right! I was going to post this but you beat me to it. The “No Fly” list isn’t a terrorist list so much as it is a “List assembled by butter-fingered government employees which you have no chance to appeal, let alone get government acknowledgement that you’re on the list.”
Funny how liberals use the threat of terrorism only when it suits them… in this case, spooking the public into arbitrarily stripping law-abiding citizens of their gun rights. What happened to FBI background checks???
Pro gun bullet points? How about:
• A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What are the goals on for every gun to be registered? Have them name examples where gun registration has helped lower crime, and has proven effective. Have them give stats.
Would the “smart triggers” apply to police/military? Why not? Why is their life more important than yours? Are police required to give personal protection (Warren v. DC states a no)
If a child gains access to a parents loaded firearm and shoots someone, the parent is already held liable. Why would making them an accomplice help?
Babies are on the “no-fly list” along with other children who the government has mistaken the identity and refuses to remove them. What steps should be made to remove someone from the list that is incorrectly on the list.
What laws outside of a gun-show are not laws inside of a gun show?
What place would you want firearms be carried? If something happens and the police are responding, will you be willing to enforce the no-gun policy on them? Why?
OK, sane gun laws list, where do I start?
First point, see Connecticut, gun registration is going REALLY well, I hear.
Second, Fingerprint scanning technology? I use one of these at my office, to clock in every morning. The scanner itself is larger than a pistol flashlight, requires you to place your finger in JUST the right spot, and even then only works a quarter of the time. Attaching that device alone to a gun would be silly, actually integrating it into a functional trigger safety? Pure science fiction.
3. The no-fly list is an absolute pile of bovine digested flora. I won’t go into detail, so I’ll just leave this link here:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18775_5-popular-safety-measures-that-dont-make-you-any-safer.html
4. Done. It is already illegal for felons to purchase firearms, from anywhere, ever. Next.
5. You know you could just shorten this list by saying, “Guns not allowed in public, except to commit crimes.”
Ask him how being disarmed in a restaurant helped Nikki Goeser’s husband. Or Suzannah Gratia Hupp’s parents. Or….the list goes on.
I’d also like to know how requiring all guns carry insurance (whatever that means) will reduce violence.
On No Fly List: Ted Kennedy was prohibited from flying 5 separate times because his name was SIMILAR to one on the list. How accurate was that?
Kennedy’s was a case of clerical error. He was supposed to be placed on the No Drive List.
LOL.
Thus emphasizing the point: you cannot trust a bureaucracy to maintain the list(s) properly.
If the purpose of gun control is public safety, then why aren’t any of these groups pushing for “education” like MADD did? If this is about safe storage, then why isn’t the govt offering to subsidize gun safe purchases? If this is really about keeping kids safe, then why isn’t the dept of education partnering with CMP to mandate gun safety and marksmanship classes in every school? Guns parallel other “public safety” issues, but prohibition is only discussed with regard to guns. Not sex ed or condoms in school, not drunk driving or abstinence programs, not seatbelt campaigns, physical fitness programs, only prohibition of firearms. Other miserable failures in prohibition, war on drugs, prohibition of alcohol, etc.. Failing that, molon labe. How many people are liberals willing to see die over this?
This. I like this. This is going on offense and not responding to their wish list of fairy dust and magical thinking.
You asked for gun rights laws, this topic is a beauty: Federal Common Core guidelines should be amended to include mandatory firearms safety training, based on existing child safety programs (Eddie Eagle). With millions of dangerous firearms in millions of US households, we cannot hope to completely remove the threat of a young child finding a firearm and causing a tragedy out of ignorance. But we can educate those children to put down the firearm and leave the area to tell an adult. Rather than anger millions of gun owners with threats to their 2nd Amendment Rights, you will instead gain their cooperation in educating the next generation in safe behavior.
And who can be against safe behavior? 🙂
Most of the gun debates miss the forest for the trees, in my opinion.
Attempt to apply any of these tests to any other fundamental human right – free speech in particular – have been invalidated. Likewise for several delineated rights, eg the right to vote. Heck, even driving a car – which is most definitely a privilege, not a right – can’t be restricted in this fashion in many states.
So the only real debate point is whether a human being has an inalienable right to self defense by whatever means that individual chooses. If so, nothing else can be said.
If not, why not and where are the limits to be placed, and who has the right to set those limits for another person? And why?
I would point out that human society is like an ecosystem and like any ecosystem, it responds to the pressures applied. If you don’t understand the ecosystem and apply a pressure, the outcome may be entirely different from what you expected. Our side understands this ecosystem better than their side apparently. We strive to create an environment toxic to criminality. They seem hell bent on creating an environment conducive to criminality. They see guns as the problem. We see that the target-rich environment that they are creating emboldens those with evil intent. It is incomprehensible to those that see guns as bad that more good citizens taking responsibility for their safety and security will result in a better outcome. But it is becoming more difficult to ignore the growing body of evidence that leads us to understand that “More Guns, Less Crime”.
Also, if the topic turns to “sane gun laws” I would point out that it is clearly time to repeal a whole bunch of insane gun laws…
“Every gun owner needs to be licensed…”
They are licensed. It’s called the 2nd Amendment.
Sure, I’m fine with “sane” or “commonsense” gun control laws – just as soon as we’ve completed a five year test of sane speech contol laws, commonsense religious contol laws, sane voter control laws, and commonsense habeas corpus & speedy trial control laws. Let me know how that works out for you, then we can discuss firearms as well as any other rights you feel need to be surrendered.
I’d give some stats (if I had ’em!) on bad police shootings, clear wrongful deaths by police, and of course general stats on DGUs (not in that order). Be sure to ask him which constitutional rights he’s willing to relinquish. I’m sure he’s felt totally violated if he’s ever experienced illegal search and seizure (robbery).
Drive the point home that the gun was not responsible for his son’s death, and that we can’t get rid of evil by banning tools.
Mr. Fineman, I am truly sorry your son was murdered. I am also sorry that you believe that screwing with my 2nd Amendment rights will assuage your hurt and anger. It hasn’t, it doesn’t and never will.
He needs counseling and to learn to not blame inanimate objects for his unfortunate and terrible loss.
Michael Fineman was killed in San Diego, California. California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. In fact, points 1, 2, 5, & 6 are almost fully implemented by California law. Are they reducing crime? Negatory. The only thing reducing violent crime in California right now is grey market weed.
Various talking points …
* Expecting criminals to obey a sign that prohibits guns in an area is not only ridiculous but dangerous. Prohibiting guns in “restaurants, bars, schools, etc.” only guarantees that a criminal will face less resistance if he decides to attack a location.
* Police (and other government agencies) ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE for anyone’s defense. Partial list of related court cases:
South v. Maryland (1855, United States Supreme Court)
Riss v. New York (1968, Court of Appeals of the State of New York)
Warren v. District of Columbia (1981, District of Columbia Court of Appeals)
Bowers v. DeVito (1982, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit)
Lynch v. North Carolina Department of Justice (1989, Court of Appeals of North Carolina)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989, United States Supreme Court)
Barillari v. Milwaukee (1995, Supreme Court of Wisconsin)
Ford v. Town of Grafton (1998, Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Worcester)
Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005, United States Supreme Court)
* A lot of bad stuff can happen in just a couple of minutes (a really, really good police response time). It doesn’t take long for someone to assault, rob, murder another person. The response time to Sandy Hook wasn’t terribly long, and it still didn’t stop the slaughter.
* Laws that prohibit firearms carry make responsible gun owners who have HARMED NO ONE into criminals, very much in the same way that laws that prohibit the possession of marijuana make people into criminals who have HARMED NO ONE.
* If registration leads to confiscation in the UK, and Australia, and Canada, there is no logical reason to think it can’t happen here.
* A firearm is one of the few tools that a person can use for effective self-defense that does not require direct contact with an attacker. This is very helpful when an attacker is bigger and/or stronger and/or faster than the intended victim.
* A firearm is perhaps the ONLY tool that one person can use to fight off multiple attackers by him/herself. It gives any individual – even smaller/weaker persons, senior citizens, etc. a decent chance to stop an attack.
* Treating all gun owners like potential attackers is roughly equivalent to treating all men like potential rapists. It is unjustified and offensive.
* Preventing a woman from carrying a gun does not help her, but it does help any rapist who wants to attack her. Supporting prohibitions on firearms carry = enabling rapists.
* Preventing a gay/lesbian from carrying a firearm does not help him/her, but it does help the group of bigots that want to attack the gay/lesbian.
* All additional legal requirements for firearms ownership and carrying (including “smart gun” requirements, additional training hours, insurance requirements, etc.) hurt poor people disproportionately. They make poor people less able to defend themselves.
One additional comment .. I think that while in the overall scheme of things, the arguments re: the 2nd amendment and the US Constitution have their place, they will not help if you are trying to “win the hearts” of those who are undecided. I probably would refrain from using those arguments unless it happens to be appropriate to a specific question.
Hope this helps. Good luck.
You wanna see the gun culture in America? You likely won’t wanna see ’em but I’ll still show you just in case you haven’t shook your head in disgust yet today.
Youtube: Bang Da Hitta die L’z
There is some seriously irresponsible firearm handling in that video. I really hope no one gets hurt. /sarc
1a) Licensure of a natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right is absurd. Do you need a license before you start writing anti-gun agitprop?
1b) The Supreme Court, in Haynes v. U.S., ruled that felons, the people that Mr. Fineman is ostendibly guarding against, don’t have to register their guns. If felons legally do not have to register guns, then the only people that DO have to register guns would be law abiding gun owners. How is that increasing safety?
1c) There is absolutely no justifiable reason for each gun to carry insurance. The car analogy doesn’t even hold up with this point. The vast majority of states are “provable negligence” states. This means that the insurance policy of whomever is at fault pays the bill. If a gun owned by a law abiding gun owner (see 1b) is used in justifiable self defense then the insurance policy is effectively useless.
2) Even the courts are beginning to disallow fingerprint evidence at trial. There has been significant work done in the past several years showing that fingerprint analysis, even using software, is incredibly subjective. The growing consensus in the forensic community is that fingerprints, by any measureable standard, may not be as unique as has been believed.
3) Under what other circumstance is a parent/adult charged with accessory to the crimes of a minor?
4a) Why would a terrorist waste time attempting to procure any of the firearms that are generally available to the American public? Readily available firearms in the United States are generally semi-automatic; terrorists, which historically have strong black market ties, could acquire fully automatic versions of these weapons with far less effort.
4b) The no-fly list has been repeatedly shown to be littered with “false positives.” The criteria by which someone is placed on the list has never been published, the list itself is not publicly available, and there is no effective method to appeal once a person has been placed on the list.
5) “Prohibited persons” are ALREADY disallowed from purchasing a firearm. If this is a perceived problem then we would be better served by increasing enforcement of the laws that are currently being broken rather than enacting more laws that will be ignored.
6) The list of gun free zones includes what are potentially the most dangerous places for an individual to visit. Violent criminals have been known to specifically target several of the places on that list. Outright denial of the right to self defense by law abiding citizens is tantamount to inviting violence against them.
In summary, have at ‘im Robert.
“We’re done asking”
Oh, good. I was getting tired of all the nagging.
Apart from everything else written on this site my problem with #1 is this. It is just one more way to vilify and ostracize gun owners. Here is the point I would want to make. The reason I don’t want a national registry is this. I own a certain number of firearms. Some of them are black and scary. At some time in the future my daughter may have a party that leads the neighbor to call the police for a noise disturbance. (Or there might be an argument in my house that a concerned neighbor believes is troublesome). The responding police officer, who doesn’t know anybody in my family, looks at the address, sees the firearms I own, and instead of a polite knock on the door and a request to turn the music down there is a full SWAT raid.
You see, by forcing registration, any minor disturbance or incident involving a gun owner becomes a potentially life threatening, and completely unnecessary, aggressive action by the police/SWAT, because every risk averse police chief will view any interaction with a gun owner as a high risk proposition and employ countermeasures accordingly. If it saves one officer’s life don’t you know.
Of course registration leads to confiscation, and evidence does not support the validity of his claim that “common sense laws” will make any difference at all, but there are more immediate concerns. This is my answer to the, “if you’re doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide or worry about,” argument. Of course seeing gun owners SWATed over loud music would be exactly what people like Elliot Fineman would love to happen.
If they want me to carry insurance on me exercising my Constitutional right, can I force them to have insurance in order to vote? Shouldn’t I be compensated when the idiotic laws passed by the morons they vote in when it hurts my income, net worth, property rights etc.? I demand they must have insurance to vote, exercise free speech and plead the 5th.
The right to vote is as fundamental and protected as the right to keep and bear a firearm. Any restrictions on purchase of a firearm (photo ID, fees, mandatory education, background check) should also apply to voting. In the alternative, buying a firearm should be as easy to do as voting.
I really like the implications of their logo.
A mob of angry people, telling us gun owners that they’re “done asking.” A mob of unarmed people, who are frightened to death of violence, are asserting that they’re ready to move beyond words? What, are we going to have a dance-off?
Oh, it’s on…..
Oh no he di’int!
DJ, drop it like it’s hot!
Or we could all engage in a whithering, winner-take-all round of “Yo Mama’s so fat…” put-downs. That or the dance-off thing works for me.
Frightened to death of inanimate objects, more like it.
I’d like to know what makes firearms so unique for their fear vs other “deadly” things like cars, knives, hammers, pools, bathtubs, stairs, etc. Where do they actually get their facts? Even gov’t funded research invalidates their claims. Why do they actually support gun violence by watching action and police drama movies and shows? Why do they believe a lawful activity and property needs any level of justification? Why would it not apply to other property (e.g. house)?
Overall, invite to go shooting.
I didn’t see a request for a national database for those with mental issues. Wouldn’t that be easier? Oh, wait, that invades federal protection law. And is he footing the bill for the billions needed for inventory, infrastructure, staffing to enact these laws proposed? Or all the additional police that are NOT obligated to protect us?
I would start the debate by asking Mr. non-descript gun grabber if we should assume for the purposes of this debate that we are discussing these conditions as applied to all portions of the Bill of Rights or if he has chosen to arbitrarily apply these conditions only to one of them? Then follow up by asking what arbitrary means test was used to limit these conditions only to one? The debate will never return to the intended topic… LOL.
Ask him when he plans on licensing and registering his penis into the national potential rapist database.
Can we stop punishing people who haven’t done anything wrong?
That’s actually pretty good.
Am I the only one who feels debates are pointless? I’ve never met anyone who could be swayed from or too an opinion by listening to two people arguing with each other.
Granted I’m not the most outgoing social person but these “fence sitters” elude me. People either have an opinion or they just don’t care about the subject. Maybe the apathetic are the fence sitters?
No debate audience is actually there to be educated or to listen with an open mind. They’re there for the same reason Romans packed the Colosseum. To cheer for their man to kill the other guys man.
I disagree with this. There are some debates where they quantifiably measure which side of a debate has changed more minds. As you might expect, the real value comes not when you convince your opponent that he/she is wrong, but you convince the people listening to the two of you hash it out. You probably won’t convince your opponent. They will be too entrenched in their position and it’s unlikely that they haven’t heard similar arguments before. But not everyeone is immune to persuasion.
For example:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/03/debate-affirmative-action-on-campus-does-more-harm-than-good/
I agree. Whole television shows have been built around the concept.
You will already be at a disadvantage, Mr. Fineman being the grieving father who buried his hero son. Would Michael Fineman have carried that night if he could? He was a veteran, no doubt capable of using a handgun. He confronted the eventual shooter on behalf of the women in his group, which shows his protective character. Of course, you can’t say what we’d all like to say — that if Michael had a gun on him, he would be alive today, or at least have had a fighting chance. Mr. Fineman the elder would play the righteous indignance card. But this is a textbook example of why I and everyone here carries.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/dean-weingarten/yes-good-guys-guns-stop-bad-guys-guns-frequently/
Yes, Fineman was very brave. Which did absolutely d1ck.
Yes, my point. In self defense you get further with courage and a gun than with courage alone.
One of the worst crashes I worked was a drunk, illegal alien who killed a mother of 5 on Mother’s Day.
1-he was here illegally
2-he did not have a license
3- car was his but not registered
4- no insurance either
5- he was driving drunk
All the laws on the books didn’t do squat.
Try to make him spell out how he would enforce those “sane” gun laws. Let the audience hear his Orwellian wet dreams.
Focus on the responsibility of citizens to provide for their own protection, since even if new laws are passed, they will be ineffective at best. If you can, expand that into how communities need to take control of their own “cultures of violence” by helping to hold criminals responsible for their behavior.
You already have all the talking points, RF. We won the debate on merits many moons ago. Now this is about persuasion through identification and connection. He wants people to identify with him as a parent and connect with him on mutual love for our children. Well.
Don’t we all? So beat him to the punch. Get the audience to identify and connect with you as the parent of daughters who’ve never been assaulted and never been murdered, because self-defense firearms allow you to protect them. You can’t be everywhere and won’t be there forever, though.
One day they will be adults on their own and they will need to protect themselves. You’re fighting for firearms freedoms today, so that they can defend themselves in the future. That’s part of your legacy as a man and as a father: fighting to ensure that other parents don’t have to endure the spaciousness of anguish that this man has had to over the loss of his son. You’re fighting for his son’s memory as much as for your daughters’ future.
Judge a society by how it treats its weakest members. We owe it to all of our society’s members that they may exercise their right to self-defense.
Excellent
Pro-gun bullet points? I’ve gotten most of mine from here! But there is also this: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf.
Here is a couple that come to mind:
-number of private guns has skyrocketed, violent crime rates are at an all time low (counter-counter point: Gun ownership is not decreasing, just the number of people who are actually admitting they own firearms)
-“assault weapons” are not fully automatic, and can be anything the legislators want them to be (Lever Actions confiscated in NYC because of SAFE Act)
-even if they were fully automatic, it would probably be less effective in a killing spree (blow through ammo quicker, more misses)
-“Assault weapons” actually are used in defense, despite many claims to the contrary, and are an ideal home defense weapon
-“high capacity” magazines are necessary because of the threat of multiple attackers, and, especially with handguns, a single hit is not a guaranteed stop (8 out of 10 handgun victims survive (or something like that, I forget the exact statistic))
There are plenty others, and if you were to take my advice, it would be to instantly counter any incorrect statement made by the opposition (although, if this were a formal debate, that wouldn’t be possible).
The comments section of this Freakonomics podcast has a lot of good points:
http://freakonomics.com/2013/02/14/how-to-think-about-guns-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/
What the fluff (Skallagrim fan) would they do if they encountered a criminal with a knife or a gun? Scream; “THAT SHOULD BE BANNED!!” before being shot to shit? To quote Kevin McAllister, I don’t think so. What they’re going to do is think to theirselves: “I wish I hadn’t abused the second amendment, I wish I hadn’t been so smallminded, ” and most of all, they’ll think; “I WISH I HAD A GUN!”
This essay makes a very solid pro-gun argument, from the left:
http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html
I find it very informative.
Shift the burden of proof. Ask Elliot Fineman to back up his opinions with facts and references. Ask for time-lapse analysis instead of cross-sectional analysis.
This article consists of a solid pro gun argument:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment
What’s good about this one is it focuses on how being anti-gun is inconsistent to other values your debate partner may hold.
-D
I am a liberal and love the second amendment. I am a Benefactor member of the NRA, Life member of Second Amendment Foundation, member of GeorgiaCarry.org, member of Gun Owners of America and… oh, yeah… member of ACLU.
I would suggest reading Glenn Beck’s book “Control”… He outlines every argument and statistic used by gun-grabbers and then systematically destroys every premise using their own data.
Why don’t you ask him, Jew to Jew, what he REALLY thinks about “never again”?
Tell you what elliot, get your special criminals to stop committing crimes against good people & we won’t need to do this dance. What’s that you say? Your criminals won’t listen? Well, have I got a deal for you elliot. For a limited time concealed carriers will stop your criminals free of charge. I know I know, your overwhelmed & this is a dream come true for you. See eliot, & you thought we couldn’t work together.
I’ll pray for your patience. Have you rehearsed by talking at a brick wall?
For me it comes down to how many peoples lives are saved by guns vs how many peoples live are taken by guns.
Every real study supports the pro gun side.
Oh also something about the second amendment. If we take one away, what’s to stop the government from taking the others away?
It may be a bit painful, but simply ask him wouldn’t it have been better for his son to defend himself?
Which ONE of those points would have saved his son? If none, then why do it? If one, then why do you need more than one?
What are sane online speech laws?
Laws that:
• Every digital communications device (DCD) needs to be licensed; Online speech must be done under your real/legal name; owners of DCD’s must carry insurance;
• Require DCD’s to have smart filters that only allow online speech if the fingerprint matches the owner’s fingerprint;
• Enact parallel charges for parents, relatives and adults, as accomplices, for speech by children who gain access to their DCD;
• Prevent suspected felons and people accused of a crime from legally purchasing DCD’s;
• Prevent criminals, the mentally ill and all prohibited purchasers from legally purchasing DCD’s at retailers or over the internet;
• Prohibit people from using DCD in restaurants, bars, schools, sporting arenas, workplace parking lots, airports, churches, national parks, onboard Amtrak trains—to name a few.
These sensible restrictions to online speech will prevent cyber bullying, online hate speech, liable, distracted driving, to name a few. These restrictions will save hundreds of thousands of lives annually; if it will save just one child’s life then it’s worth shredding free speech online. Next time a child commits suicide due to cyber bullying we will charge the offenders (and their parents) with involuntary manslaughter. Give up your constitutionally protect rights, it’s for the children.
Please note: if this feel good law fail to save a child we fully plan to expand it from just online speech to all speech, just a little FYI.
Robert,
I think you might be well served to watch Ben Shapiro, How to Debate a Liberal. Watch it 50 times. Start with the premise that you will never convince the host or your guest opponent. You are there to convince the viewing audience of the truth about guns, and the sick minded fearful angry little man you will reduce to a gibbering puddle of tears and self loathing.
Screw being polite and giving them any validation. They are wrong, they are emotional bullies, they are control freaks, and they will no longer be allowed to dictate the terms of the national conversation about guns. Now, sick em Robert!
Only one question to ask, now that I think about it: “How will more laws stop murder when murder is already a crime that can carry the maximum sentence a jury can hand down?”
Comparing liability insurance for guns to auto insurance is a poor comparison.
Requiring insurance for carrying a gun can more accurately be compared to requiring someone who is is towing or hauling a vehicle that is fueled up & operable to have liability insurance to drive it just in case they decide to unload it and start driving it.
Requiring insurance to own a gun is comparable to requiring insurance just to store a vehicle in your garage.
Point of clarification:
“TM” is not the same as “(R)”
It means that the phrase is not a *registered* trade or service mark.
I only bring it up, because it’s US who have been doing a lot of asking these past decades.
Maybe we should stop ASKING.
I would try to spin the debate away from the talk of gun culture and frame it in terms of Thug culture. Point out the statistics of the 16 to 26 year old “children” homicide rate consists almost entirely of gang related deaths.
Then talk about homicide in general. That homicide is illegal in every country on earth and yet somehow in spite of all the laws forbidding homicide, people still kill each other.
Finally finish up with gun control will disproportionately affect minorities and as emforty stated up thread the lgbt community.
Then shut it down with, all the statistics prove these points, so if you are ignoring the facts that more guns = less violence, and that gun control already has a disparate impact on minorities, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Gun Control is a Pro-violence, Anit-Minority platform.
If the government doesn’t belong in a same sex couples bedroom, why do they belong in my gun safe?
Point #1 – Um.. that would be an infringement (based on cost alone) and the reason why the 2A exists in the first place.
Point #2 – Um.. that too would be an infringement for the same cost reasons. See point #1.
Point #3 – By “children” I wonder if he means the 16 to 25 year old gang bangers that they use to pad the “child” gun death stats?
Point #4 – NICS should be plenty efficient otherwise charge them with terrorism and give them due process.
Point #5 – Please define criminal. Please define mentally ill. As far as I know, subsets of these two groups are already prohibited from purchasing firearms ANYWHERE. There is no such thing as “legally purchasing” for someone already adjucated a felon or mentally ill.
Point #6 – “to name a few” leaves the window open for scope creep and lawyers will have field day with that. BTW – did you know that in 1953 you could buy a Corvette in any color you wanted as long as it was Polo White?
Not that logic will make a difference, but I’d highly recommend RF make the hospital analogy (I think I saw it on this site, actually….). Point out the number of people who die from infections that they get at hospitals every year, but that despite that, we as a society have accepted that that’s a necessary risk because hospitals do far more good than harm. Couple that concept with hard facts about gun deaths every year compared to (as much as this can be a hard fact, anyway) the number of lives (potentially) saved by the use of guns every year. It’s also worth noting that Mexico has such strict gun laws that guns are, for all intents and purposes, outlawed. And clearly it’s worked, because Mexico is such a peaceful utopia…. It’s worth noting that the large majority of the violence in this country occurs in small, heavily impoverished and gang ridden areas.
This video makes some excellent points in a far more concise way than I could. Also, the comments are surprisingly thoughtful, given that 99.9% of youtube videos are people screaming “FAG!” at each other and talking about what perverse sex acts they would perform on each other’s mothers.
Not that logic will make a difference, but I’d highly recommend RF make the hospital analogy (I think I saw it on this site, actually….). Point out the number of people who die from infections that they get at hospitals every year, but that despite that, we as a society have accepted that that’s a necessary risk because hospitals do far more good than harm. Couple that concept with hard facts about gun deaths every year compared to (as much as this can be a hard fact, anyway) the number of lives (potentially) saved by the use of guns every year. It’s also worth noting that Mexico has such strict gun laws that guns are, for all intents and purposes, outlawed. And clearly it’s worked, because Mexico is such a peaceful utopia…. It’s worth noting that the large majority of the violence in this country occurs in small, heavily impoverished and gang ridden areas.
This video makes some excellent points in a far more concise way than I could. Also, the comments are surprisingly thoughtful, given that 99.9% of youtube videos are people screaming “FAG!” at each other and talking about what perverse sex acts they would perform on each other’s mothers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0
Despite the fact that Michael Fineman was very highly trained in small arms as a former active duty Special Forces soldier. He was not allowed to carry legally in San Diego. If he had been able to he may have survived, as Ralph Garbarini, the shooter, began shooting after being asked to leave the restaurant, Extraordinary Desserts,…because he was staring at the victims, which I would call a heads-up for Michael.
The shooter purchased the gun legally only in the sense that he apparently lied on his purchase form. He was carrying his firearm illegally….but laws don’t force nuts or crooks to get a permit or insurance, and can never do so.
I think that you’re going to need to back away from the statistics and shoot for the empathy. The audience will want to hear how the new rules will affect individuals. What stories will these new laws create? Your opponent will have stories of people that might have been saved by his wish list. You will need stories of people who will have died without a cheap, reliable gun to protect them & theirs. The lady shooting her Hi Point carbine at the three young, virile teenagers during a daylight home invasion is perfect. Paint the picture. What would have happened to that woman if she was defenseless against three strong men who were willing to break the law? How long would she and her children have suffered? Would her children have been forced to watch those three men assault their mother? Would they have stopped at robbery? Would her children have been spared whatever came to mind of those teenagers?
It’s an ugly picture, but the audience needs to know the consequences of these efforts to restrict ownership. They need to make that connection that inadequate self defense puts the weak at the mercy of the strong and the hostile.
I would advise against relying on the 2nd Amendment and legal rights theories. Yes, our side is correct on those issues. But if you’re arguing Natural Rights Theory against a man arguing Grieving Parent Theory, you’re going to lose.
Of all those gun control wishes, the demand that guns carry insurance keeps striking me as weird. It’s a relatively new demand from the gun control crowd and I consider it dangerous. It sounds reasonable to the layman as its not a huge burden to carry insurance (after all, most people have insurance of one form or another) and promises of financial compensation in case of tragedy appeals to the compassion in us. Yes, it’s a dumb idea. But pointing out that 1) Most accidental firearm deaths are already covered under homeowners policies, 2) Firearm insurance is already offered and almost nobody buys it, and 3) Criminals are going to ignore this law just like the laws against murder is not going to resonate with the lay audience.
Instead, I would suggest (again) to get personal. Bring up the case of Hadiya Pendleton, the Chicago teenager who was shot after returning from President Obama’s inauguration. Hadiya was a majorette in the marching band. Her band was selected to perform in a presidential inauguration. She was shot at 2:30 in the afternoon in a public park in a gang retaliation. Her alleged killer, Michael Ward, is 18. He is prohibited from possessing that handgun, carrying that handgun and absolutely prohibited from firing into a crowd of teenagers. What on earth makes NGVAC think that gang member is going to have an insurance policy for that gun? What fool insurance company is going to underwrite a policy for an illegal firearm in a gang member’s hands? How will making me pay more for my next firearm help Hadiya Pendleton or the thousands of other crime victims?
More to the point, what will that do to the mother in Detroit who can only afford a Hi Point carbine?
This man is psychologically dammaged and is looking for some way to place blame. I think he needs a good doctor. It makes me sad to see someone so tormented that this is his response.
To deal with the questions at hand,
1. Every gun owner needs to be licensed; Every gun must be registered; Every gun has to carry insurance;
a. Licensing
i. Licensing does nothing to prevent those with evil intent from executing their plan.
ii. Licensing does put people on a list to be harassed by the police and by government processes (think IRS persecution).
b. Registration
i. Stolen guns may be registered but, once stolen, are off the grid. Violent criminals do not register the weapons they steal or buy illegally. Therefore registration provides no benefit in a criminal investigation.
ii. Registration simpy provides a list of who HAD what when the registration was created.
iii. In the event of a stolen weapon’s recovery at a crime scene, the weapon is rarely returned to the original owner thus negating any possible positive benefit to the owner him/herself.
iv. Such lists lend themselves to abuse by police agencies who have in the past chosen to over-respond to a gun owner’s home either in response to a 911 call or for a warrant.
v. The list created and maintained by Canada was so notoriously jumbled and the cost overruns were so high that they chose to scrap the whole thing.
vi. In every single instance of a registry the list has been used to confiscate weapons. Every single time.
c. Insurance
i. Insurance is issued to provide restoration for accidents or acts of god, not intentional acts.
ii. No insurance company offers any type of insurance that Mr. Fineman is referencing.
iii. Those insurance policies I have seen amount to a prepaid attourney retainer and some monetary benefit for the gun owner in the event that a DEFENSIVE GUN USE is required. There is on coverage for intentional acts of violence or criminal behavior.
iv. There is absolutely no prescedent for an insurance policy maintained by the owner of an item to pay out to a victim who has been attacked by the owner with the item or by someone who has stolen the item and used it illegally.
v. Homeowner and renter policies already cover accidents in the home and do not reference “gun” in any way.
2. Require guns to have smart triggers that can only fire if the fingerprint matches the owner’s fingerprint;
a. The technology stated simply does not exist in the marketplace. Even the NTSB doesn’t require car maufacturers to install non-existent safety equipment on their cars.
b. This statement precludes any possible alternate technology which may enable user identification.
c. Any future technology based on this idea would be exceedingly dangerous to the owner of the firearm as any dirt, blood, glove, environmental contaminant, etc. would render him/her completely defensless.
d. The use of gloves in winter would defeat the technology.
e. The weapon could not be loaned to a friend for legal use on a range or while hunting.
f. A low/dead battery would render the owner defenseless.
g. Switching between hands or using an alternate finger due to an injury renders the firearm useless.
3. Enact parallel charges for parents, relatives and adults, as accoplices, for crimes committed by children who gain access to their guns;
a. There is nothing special about a gun which should cause us to create new and novel (and unconstitutional) legal theories.
b. Laws regarding negligence already exist on the books and are rigorously enforced in most jurisdictions.
c. The meaning of accomplice is not met by simple acts of negligence. Enacting a law which would charge as such would be ruled unconstitutional.
d. The number of crimes committed by children with guns is vanishingly small (assuming we use the standard definition of “child”). As such, this is an attempt to fix a problem that does not exist with an unconstitutional law which would, if enacted, solve nothing.
e. A child (properly defined) quite often cannot be held criminally responsible for their actions due to their age.
f. A criminal charge requires intent. Negligence on the part of an adult does not reach this threshold.
4. Prevent suspected terrorists and people on the “No-Fly” list from leagally purchasing guns;
a. It is illegal to view the No-Fly list.
b. No one knows if their name is on the list until they are prevented from flying.
c. The list contains information added which is not uniquely identifying.
d. No one knows how a name is added to the list.
d. There is no way to have incorrect names removed from the list.
e. The existing appeal process is arbitrary and capricious (and most likely unconstitutional).
f. Existing laws specifically prohibit the list from being used for other purposes.
g. No additional benefit of any kind could be gained by using this tool except to unconstitutionally deny citizens their right to bear arms.
h. Any possilbe law which would allow this would be found unconstitutional.
5. Prevent criminals, the mentally ill and all prohibited purchasers from legally purchasing guns at gun shows or over the internet;
a. A sutible remark could be “Congratulations, mission accomplished!” Such purchases are already illegal.
b. Laws do not and cannot prevent behavior. Fear of prosecution MAY prevent behavior. Laws simply outline punishments for their violation.
i. Criminals have alreay determined that the reward is worth the risk.
ii. The insane are not deterred by punishment because they are unable to weigh risks and may not be able to identify their actions as “criminal”, “bad” or any other concepts that would stop a sane person from exhibiting the behavior.
iii. Prohibited persons may not be “criminal” prior to purchasing a gun illegally but they are after the purchase. The only way to prevent said prohibitee from this behavior is to incarcerate said person.
c. Gun Shows and Internet purchases follow the same laws as any other firearms transaction.
i. Even if person-to-person transactions required a background check, the actual sale would not and could not be prevented by the knowledge that the transaction is illegal.
ii. Out of state purchasers at gun shows must transfer any purchases to a licensed FFL in their home state even if the purchase is from an individual. The FFL is legally obligated to perform a background check prior to handing over the weapon and is prohibited from doing so if the purchaser is denied.
iii. Internet purchases follow the exact same laws as all other firearms transactions. The mode of communication is irrelevant.
6. Prohibit people from carrying guns in restaurants, bars, schools, sporting arenas, workplace parking lots, airports, churches, national parks, onboard Amtrak trains-to name a few.
a. RE #5-b; Laws do not and cannot prevent behavior. Fear of prosecution MAY prevent behavior. Laws simply outline punishments for their violation.
i. Those with criminal intent will ignore any prohibition as the act they plan is already criminal and the punishment for that crime is most likely much more severe than a “carrying in a prohibited place” charge.
ii. Only those who are deterred from performing the prohibited behavior are deterred by these threats of officially sanctioned violence upont them thus creating a ready made victim pool for the criminal.
b. The law of unintended consequences tells us that those places which we try to make the safest by this prohibition are precicely those places where we are the most vunerable to the criminal.
“We’re Done Asking.”
No. No you’re not.
Unless you are personally going to come to my house and take my property from me, all you are going to do is ask. I will continue to politely refuse. 😉
The headline of this post sounds like a rap battle.
I couldn’t hope to post something that hasn’t already been posted better.
OTHER THAN if he thinks about touching suppressors or machine guns, ask him to look at the crimes committed with such.
Don’t worry, we will wait for the dust and cobwebs to blow away and reveal the single digit.
Be like general Patton. Do not give your opponent an INCH.
talking about “half measures” is good. a sign in a school saying “gun free zone” is a half measure to protect children. a double barrel shotgun is a half measure if you have 4 attackers. a 10 round magazine is a half measure if you miss several times against 4 attackers and on average you need 3+ rounds to stop an attack
How about this:
Whay are guns singled out for “parallel charges” when other objects, or even crimes, don’t have the same treatment?
or:
Present a sure plan for disarming the criminals, gangs, and undesirables prior to restricting honest people from having guns to defend themselves from these people/
“We are done asking”… Guess that means we’re done talking. PUT ‘EM UP.
RF, I don’t know if you’ll see this, but this is all the humble advice that I can offer: Stay on offense. Talk about how we are all innocent until proven guilty, and that they’re trying to reverse that with respect to a minority that they dislike. Phrasing it like that will probably catch her flat-footed and put her on defense. Make her make her case for disarming people who can’t afford such measures. Also, if you think it will work, get personal. The guy who murdered her son wasn’t a legal gun owner, so how would these laws have helped? That’s all the advice I have.
Godspeed.
Wow many good points! another one I’d use if EVER in the presence of a live audience and my opponent were to say “But you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater!” I would loudly yell FIRE!, FIRE! Then while he still has a confused and bewildered look on his face I’d hand him my cell phone and instruct him to call the cops to arrest me. Then use that as a teaching point to explain that that expression is an outright lie and only if by abusing a right and someone is hurt/killed are you liable for that.
Then of course great comparisons to actually committing a crime vs an attempt at pre crime. Owning, carrying a firearm should never be punished even though you COULD abuse that right. Kinda like registering every man as a potential rapist because he has a penis..
Also on the whole registering/licensing for using cars thing that is a lie as well. I only need to have a license & register a car for use on public roads. My brother and I used to autocross/race a lot, and MOST of those vehicles aren’t registered, same with tractors, off road vehicles etc. No insurance needed either! An outright lie that most 2a supporters fail to address.
KISS Principle: These laws only restrict people who are law-abiding. Thereby, the lawmakers give a free pass to the law-breakers (criminals) in victimizing the populace-at-large. And the more laws that are passed, the more this becomes true.
Also – Go for the throat!! Ask Elliot how keen his son’s murderer was toward obeying laws. For instance, the law against murder.
Ask him if the murderer might have used another weapon, had a gun not been available. Ask if, for instance, his son might not have been stabbed to death with a steak knife taken from one of the dining tables at that restaurant. Ask him if his son might not have defended himself if he were armed.
If you really want to demolish Fineman, point out every illogical statement, then suggest that he is grieving his son in the wrong way and putting other people at risk by disarming them. This guy is a Chicagoite: Ask him how well gun control has worked for that city. Offer that a grieving father may be trying to make the rest of American into a Chicago.
Go get ’em, RF. It’s time to go on the attack – Let’s grab hold of these hoplaphobic, nanny-tyrants and tear ’em all to shreds!
Dear NGAVC,
You’re “Done Asking”, eh? My, what a strong statement you make…I may have peed myself just a little! Sure hope you didn’t put your foot clean through the floor when you said it. I’d retort with the same statement back at you but, you see, this thing called The Constitution is on my side and thus I don’t have to ask.
I grow weary of having to explain this to you: the Second Amendment is an individual right that extends beyond the home. Period. Even Illinois couldn’t ignore that fact any longer, “frightening” to you though it may be (loved that “50 states” graphic on your website, by the way; I could hear the shudders of fear in the voice of the graphic’s creator).
While I’m at it, I must say that these ideas of yours aren’t “sane” by a long shot. Smart triggers…hah! I always love that one! It’s almost as funny as your suggestion, which I think is close to a double negative, that we should make it illegal for those whom it’s already illegal to own firearms. You just can’t make this stuff up!
Please don’t take my comments above as insensitive, NGVAC. I realize your members have experienced personal loss as a result of violence and I pray you are delivered from your grief. But, you see, the truth is that your loss does not nullify my rights. It annoys millions of us (yes, millions…and I don’t think you outnumber us) to no end that you somehow think such is the case.
Honestly, I think some of the stories on your website even make a case for why people should be able to exercise their rights more freely, but I’m one of those crazy bastards that realizes the world isn’t always a wonderful place and that self-defense is my responsibility as an individual…but I digress…and you’re not listening anyway.
Good luck with your debate tonight. Wish I could tune in live, but I’m already looking forward to the podcast. I always enjoy hyperbole being torn to shreds by facts and logic.
Sincerely,
TStew – An Armed American
Does he want revenge? That would be my question. If his laws had been in a place a long time ago, I and a friend would be dead. Does he want me dead? Even by the most extremely lie-filled liberal-massaged statistics, a good guy with a gun saves a life 4 time (FOUR TIMES) for every time a bad guy with a gun kills somebody. The real number is more like 31 times. Why does he want 31 times more people to die at the hands of evil people? Does he get paid or something?
Mike
Missed it. Does anyone know where to listen to a recording?
It didn’t happen. First the host said Robert wouldn’t call in because he didn’t like the host’s terms. The TTAG article updated to 7:20, then the host said Robert COULD call in but they wouldn’t have time. So, a bunch of anti bs.
Personally, I’m hoping RF publishes a rebuttal here. The whole post was memory holed, probably for personal attacks, but it would be nice to hear Robert’s response to being set up….
Damn,what a sick little jew. This insane little jew talks about sane gun laws ! This little jew man’s son got shot and killed in Kali. by a crazy man a few years back while he was eating ice cream. (he was an adult). The real tragedy is that his son wasn’t armed so he could defend himself. But old Elliot in his infinite wisdom blames the gun used,not the shooter. ‘Nuff said about this useless little pissant !
saya sangat menyukai itu coba kalian lihat liga ciputrabanyak yang menarik dan sangat menguntung kan di jaman sekarang ini
Comments are closed.