Why We Can't Have A "Reasonable Discussion" On 2A

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • jwh20

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    28   0   0
    Feb 22, 2013
    2,069
    48
    Hamilton County Indi
    This is an excellent writeup on the principles upon which the Bill of Rights is based.

    Why We Can't Have A "Reasonable Discussion" On 2A in [Market-Ticker]

    Bottom line is that you cannot have a reasonable discussion with someone who is dead-set on taking something from you that they think you should not have.

    The anti-gun forces think the 2A is obsolete and that guns have no place in our society except in the hands of law enforcement. They fool themselves into believing that if only we could rid our "streets" of guns that peace and safety would abound. They somehow believe that criminals are only criminals because guns give them the means to do what they want.

    So in that article he says: "So you're for private ownership of nukes, right?" That's the appeal to absurdity argument. No, I'm ALL for the 2A but there is no PERSONAL DEFENSIVE purpose for a nuclear weapon. It's a weapon of mass destruction and if I were to carry one and use it in self-defense, it would defeat my purpose since I'd be vaporized along with the bad-guy. Anyone who raises this issue is clearly NOT wanting a reasonable discussion.

    A reasonable discussion would begin with WHAT we are trying to achieve. Is it a gun-free America or a violence-free America? The leftists would say these are the same thing but clearly and REASONABLE person would see that they are not. There are places in the US with a LOT of guns and little violence and there are places with FEW (and virtually no legal) guns and a LOT of violence. Why is that? (I don't know for sure but to say there is a cause/effect relationship between guns and violence is to NOT have a reasonable discussion!)

    A reasonable discussion would continue with HOW to reduce violent behavior? That would clearly begin with locking up violent offenders. I have no reservations about "use a gun in a crime, go to prison for a long time" laws. By their very nature they cut down on violent behavior. A violent person in prison cannot inflict his violence on society.

    A reasonable discussion would conclude with WHY young black, Asian, and Hispanic men in cities gravitate toward violent gang. Why does black-on-black violence plague our inner cities? Why are mentally-ill and violent individuals like Adam Lanza, Dylan Klebold, James Holmes, and others driven to kill?

    The anti-gun forces are not really wanting to engage in any reasonable discussion about this. They KNOW they are right and you are WRONG!
     

    wrnyhuise

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 8, 2013
    308
    16
    SW Indianapolis

    ModernGunner

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 29, 2010
    4,749
    63
    NWI
    I'm always in favor of having a reasonable discussion about guns, gun ownership, carrying a gun, gun rights, and so forth. Really, I'm always in favor of having a reasonable discussion on virtually any topic.

    A 'reasonable' discussion / debate begins with the premise and predication that reason and logic will be used. Therefore, leave your emotions 'at the door'. MOST are unwilling to do that. The OC debate on INGO is a perfect example of this. While I'm in the 'JFC camp', the 'defense' often used for OC is emotional, not reasoned.

    Anyway, to begin:

    Is it reasonable to presume criminals will continue to commit crimes for the foreseeable future, as they have since time immemorial? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that criminals will not only perpetrate crimes against property, but against the person of a law-abiding citizen, as well? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that criminals will commit their crimes not only within the home of a law-abiding citizen, but outside that home, as well? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that law-abiding citizens have the right not to have crimes perpetrated upon their person outside the home? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that, as we live in a society, that we should assist, in any way possible for us, to prevent a crime being perpetrated against another innocent, law-abiding citizen, as well? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume, though you might like to do so, there's no possible method to 'wish away' guns? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume, then, that there is no way to 'rid the world' of guns, and guns are a reality of life on this planet? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume criminals will use the weapon most readily available to them, whether or not it is a firearm? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that if criminals will use any method, including guns, to commit crimes, that law-abiding citizens have the means to protect themself from perpetration of those crimes? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that the criminal will give no 'advance notice' and that the crime will be perpetrated 'immediately' upon contact with the law-abiding citizen? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that the Police will not be immediately available to prevent a crime from being committed from the onset? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that, in all likelihood, the Police will not be on-scene until after, perhaps well after, the crime has been committed? Yes.

    Is it reasonable, then, that the law-abiding should have a means to protect themself from that crime prior to the arrival of the Police to prevent that crime being perpetrated against the law-abiding citizen? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that the law-abiding citizen will need a firearm, most likely a handgun, as the means to prevent that crime once outside the home? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that the law-abiding citizen will need 'immediate access' to that firearm to prevent that crime outside the home? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that, in order to have 'immediate access' the most likely and best place for the law-abiding person to have that firearm is carried on their person in some fashion (holster, purse, fanny-pack, etc.)? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume, then, that a law-abiding citizen has a very focused, specific, and legitimate need to carry a gun, most likely a handgun, upon their person for the purpose of defending themself and/or other law-abiding, innocent civilians against crimes being perpetrated against their person? Yes.

    So, 'Mr. Anti-gunner', you reasonably agree that the 2nd Amendment has a valid and specific purpose and that law-abiding citizens have the right and the need to prevent a criminal from perpetrating a crime against them or another law-abiding citizen, and a firearm carried on their person provides the most 'immediate access' and best method to do so? Yes.

    So, 'Mr. Anti-gunner', you've reasonably and logically answered 'Yes' to ALL my questions, so is it reasonable to presume that you agree to law-abiding citizens carrying guns for self defense?

    NO, because I hate guns! :nuts: :lmfao: :dunno:
     
    Last edited:

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,633
    149
    I'm always in favor of having a reasonable discussion about guns, gun ownership, carrying a gun, gun rights, and so forth. Really, I'm always in favor of having a reasonable discussion on virtually any topic.

    A 'reasonable' discussion / debate begins with the premise and predication that reason and logic will be used. Therefore, leave your emotions 'at the door'. MOST are unwilling to do that. The OC debate on INGO is a perfect example of this. While I'm in the 'JFO camp', the 'defense' often used for OC is emotional, not reasoned.

    Anyway, to begin:

    Is it reasonable to presume criminals will continue to commit crimes for the foreseeable future, as they have since time immemorial? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that criminals will not only perpetrate crimes against property, but against the person of a law-abiding citizen, as well? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that criminals will commit their crimes not only within the home of a law-abiding citizen, but outside that home, as well? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that law-abiding citizens have the right not to have crimes perpetrated upon their person outside the home? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that, as we live in a society, that we should assist, in any way possible for us, to prevent a crime being perpetrated against another innocent, law-abiding citizen, as well? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume, though you might like to do so, there's no possible method to 'wish away' guns? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume, then, that there is no way to 'rid the world' of guns, and guns are a reality of life on this planet? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume criminals will use the weapon most readily available to them, whether or not it is a firearm? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that if criminals will use any method, including guns, to commit crimes, that law-abiding citizens have the means to protect themself from perpetration of those crimes? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that the criminal will give no 'advance notice' and that the crime will be perpetrated 'immediately' upon contact with the law-abiding citizen? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that the Police will not be immediately available to prevent a crime from being committed from the onset? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that, in all likelihood, the Police will not be on-scene until after, perhaps well after, the crime has been committed? Yes.

    Is it reasonable, then, that the law-abiding should have a means to protect themself from that crime prior to the arrival of the Police to prevent that crime being perpetrated against the law-abiding citizen? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that the law-abiding citizen will need a firearm, most likely a handgun, as the means to prevent that crime once outside the home? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that the law-abiding citizen will need 'immediate access' to that firearm to prevent that crime outside the home? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume that, in order to have 'immediate access' the most likely and best place for the law-abiding person to have that firearm is carried on their person in some fashion (holster, purse, fanny-pack, etc.)? Yes.

    Is it reasonable to presume, then, that a law-abiding citizen has a very focused, specific, and legitimate need to carry a gun, most likely a handgun, upon their person for the purpose of defending themself and/or other law-abiding, innocent civilians against crimes being perpetrated against their person? Yes.

    So, 'Mr. Anti-gunner', you reasonably agree that the 2nd Amendment has a valid and specific purpose and that law-abiding citizens have the right and the need to prevent a criminal from perpetrating a crime against them or another law-abiding citizen, and a firearm carried on their person provides the most 'immediate access' and best method to do so? Yes.

    So, 'Mr. Anti-gunner', you've reasonably and logically answered 'Yes' to ALL my questions, so is it reasonable to presume that you agree to law-abiding citizens carrying guns for self defense?

    NO, because I hate guns! :nuts: :lmfao: :dunno:
    Couldn't just make your point without taking a shot at OC'ers? Your obsession with them seems unreasonable. :dunno:
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,633
    149
    Agreed, I can't remember the last time an OCer took a shot (not in jest or tongue-in-cheek) at CC.

    Yes I can, Cpt Nervous did a while back. We are sorry about him. :D
    OC'ers are too emotional (and nervous). They shouldn't even be allowed to own guns.
     

    ATM

    will argue for sammiches.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Jul 29, 2008
    21,019
    83
    Crawfordsville
    Nice article. :yesway:

    ...A 'reasonable' discussion / debate begins with the premise and predication that reason and logic will be used. Therefore, leave your emotions 'at the door'. MOST are unwilling to do that. The OC debate on INGO is a perfect example of this. While I'm in the 'JFO camp', the 'defense' often used for OC is emotional, not reasoned...

    You know, people can easily go back and read your 6th post on INGO where you first jumped into the OC argument thread with little more than emotional opinions and got your lunch packed with reason and logic, right?

    Let it go, man. Move on.
     

    beararms1776

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 5, 2010
    3,407
    38
    INGO
    Because many anti firearm folks refuse to acknowledge a words actual meaning and have opposite definitions in "their" other dictionary.
    A good example of that is the word militia.
    The logic, reason and intelligence it took to come together and to write the BoR and these awesome historical Amendments, I can say with certainty, the founders knew the difference between military and militia.
    Anti's can make normal look crazy.
     
    Last edited:

    Caleb

    Making whiskey, one batch at a time!
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Aug 11, 2008
    10,155
    63
    Columbus, IN
    I've came across people arguing the nuke, grenades, rpg's...


    As it's been said earlier nukes are WMD as are biological weapons, grenades and rpg's are explosives...none of them are same as firearms.
     

    Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,021
    113
    Martinsville
    Once again, the nail in the coffin for the entire debate is not quoting something for illiterate people, they can't read, they won't understand.

    No, it's the simple matter of explaining what purpose laws serve. Laws are a means of prosecution to catch and convict a criminal so that they do not continue to harm others.

    Laws are NOT a means of preventing anything. The only way to prevent something is to consider everyone guilty until proven innocent, and treat everyone as such.

    Most people have trouble understanding this since even those who write the laws have no concept of this most basic rule. This is why laws written with this purpose always fail.
     
    Top Bottom