What to tell your liberal friends about gun control

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Predecessor, Jul 31, 2012.

  1. Predecessor

    Predecessor New Member

    Since the recent atrocity in Aurora, liberals have been calling for more gun control. On the surface, ignorant citizens who have no understanding whatsoever of the 2nd Amendment (or the rules of logic) seem sympathetic to those calls. I've noticed on several occasions recently, top democrats and republicans "debating" the principle. Each time I have been non-plussed by how weak the position the republican presented. Now I don't know if that is crafty news editing or if some of the leaders in the party really don't understand the purpose of the second amendment either. For instance, Senators Feinstein (D) and Johnson (R) recently squared off on Fox News. Feinstein made the oft repeated point that "There really is no need for citizens to have 'assault weapons' on the street." - To which Johnson weakly replied, "well, I know there are some people who actually hunt with those guns..." -- Hunting??? You've got a national audience and that is the best reason you can give??? :? IMO, this is what he should have said...

    Senator Fienstein, by instituting additional gun control laws you are further eroding the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. That is what you are really trying to do. In thinking that you will make the streets "safer" by removing semi-automatic firearms from law-abiding citizens, you are either grossly naive or you simply are using that line as a smokescreen to further the socialistic agenda.

    If this were about saving innocent lives, why not try to ban motor vehicles? Statistics clearly show that more than double the number of innocent American Citizen's lives are claimed each year from vehicular crashes. If your reaction to Aurora is to ban the ownership of firearms, then you should at least show consistency by offering legislation to control the ownership of horseless carriages.

    "But cars are so convenient, you point out. They make it easy to get from point A to point B. They aid in commerce and allow our economy to flourish which in turn protects and preserves this great nation. That is why the 40,000 deaths that occur each year in America is acceptable."

    And what about alcohol then? For what reason do you not try to re-instate the ban on spirits? Does the 75,000 American lives lost each year from abuse not concern you as much? (over 4x the number of firearms related deaths)

    Cars are convenient, and alcohol is available at a convenience store; but neither is mentioned nor protected by the Constitution. The Right of the People to Keep and Bear arms IS provided for in the Constitution. The reason it is in the Constitution is the reason we should not impose any new laws on gun control.

    Semi-Automatic firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment so that Citizens can use them for two primary purposes: To Defend the Nation from a foreign threat; and to Defend the Nation from a domestic threat. National Defense is why the amendment was so prominently placed by our founders. It wasn't so we could hunt, or collect, or participate in the shooting sports. These are well and good however and are excellent by-products of the amendment.

    My heart goes out to the victims of Aurora. A dear price was paid that day and there is indeed a cost associated with protecting this nation's Constitution. But why are liberals willing to pay the cost for convenience and pleasure (115,000 lives lost each year from auto and alcohol related deaths), but unwilling to pay the price for the freedoms we enjoy as outlined and protected by our Constitution?

    Simply put Senator Feinstein: This issue is not about Guns. It is about Control. And we will not allow you to shamelessly use the victims of Aurora to gain more of it.

  2. okie67

    okie67 Member