Saturday, October 24, 2015

Kurt Schlichter: Gun Rights Advocates Have a Devasting New Argument Against Gun Control

American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-gun liberals. Here it is, in its entirety. Ready?

“Screw you.” That’s it. Except the first word isn’t “Screw.”

It’s not exactly a traditional argument, but it’s certainly appropriate here. The fact is that there is no point in arguing with liberal gun-control advocates because their argument is never in good faith. They slander gun owners as murderers. They lie about their ultimate aim, which is to ban and confiscate all privately owned weapons. And they adopt a pose of reasonability, yet their position is not susceptible to change because of evidence, facts or law. None of those matter – they already have their conclusion. This has to do with power – their power.

You can’t argue with someone who is lying about his position or whose position is not based upon reason. You can talk all day about how crime has diminished where concealed carry is allowed, while it flourishes in Democrat blue cities where gun control is tightest. You can point to statistics showing that law-abiding citizens who carry legally are exponentially less likely to commit gun crimes than other people. You can cite examples of armed citizens protecting themselves and their communities with guns. You can offer government statistics showing how the typical American is at many times greater risk of death from an automobile crash, a fall, or poisoning than from murder by gun.

But none of that matters, because this debate is not about facts. It’s about power. The liberal anti-gun narrative is not aimed at creating the best public policy but at disarming citizens the liberal elite looks down upon – and for whom weapons represent their last-ditch ability to respond to liberal overreach.

Put simply, liberal elitists don’t like the fact that, at the end of the day, an armed citizenry can tell them, “No.”

So they argue in bad faith, shamelessly lying, libeling their opponents, and hiding their real endgame. Sure, sometimes the mask slips and a liberal politician like Mike Bloomberg or Diane Feinstein reveals their true agenda, but mostly they stay on-message.

For example, Barack Obama, who always tries to reassure us bitter clingers that he doesn’t want to take our guns, speaks longingly about the Australian plan – which was confiscation of most viable defensive weapons from the civilian population.

Obama is lying – about gay marriage, about your doctor – and he is likewise lying about guns. The minute he could disarm every American civilian he would, something particularly alarming in light of his pal Bill Ayers’ infamous observation that ‘fundamentally transforming’ America would require killing at least 25 million citizens.

No wonder free Americans are done pretending the gun argument is a rational debate and are responding with an extended middle finger – and the challenge to come and take their arms. The fact remains that any outright attempt to take the arms from tens of millions of American gun owners would almost certainly result in a second Civil War. And we all know how the first Civil War went for the Democrats.

So, through a campaign of shaming, dissembling, and outright slander, liberals are trying to talk Americans into giving up their weapons voluntarily. There’s always another “common sense” restriction to enact, spurred on by a tragedy that the last “common sense” restriction didn’t prevent and that the proposed new “common sense” restriction would not have prevented. They want to do it in baby steps, and with our cooperation, since they cannot do it by force.

There are a few people arguing in good faith, but it’s too late. Liberal writer Kurt Eichenwald recently wrote a “compromise” proposal to settle the gun issue that was notable because he actually analyzed gun freedom arguments and agreed with some of them. He cited the silliness of the “assault weapons” and “cop killer” bullet lies. While he still rejects 30 round capacity magazines, he began with opposition to silencers and then, after hearing facts and evidence from knowledgeable gun owners, changed his position. That’s good faith, the threshold requirement for a real debate, but Eichenwald mistakenly assumes this is a debate based upon reason between good faith opponents. It’s not. It’s based upon the desire of liberals for total supremacy.

So until the gun control argument becomes a real argument instead of a transparent power grab, there’s only one appropriate response to liberal gun banners. And it’s similar to “Screw you.”



Anonymous said...

Note the use of the word compromise. That word is how they get their little bits and bites. Compromise on this bill and compromise on the next bill and on and on and eventually you have compromised everything away. first get rid of the 30-50 round mags, then get rid of the 15-20 round mags then make all weapons single shot, while the government maintains it fully automatic belt fed weapons. In Vietnam we had an M-60 machine gun with 15 200 round cans of ammo linked together that makes a 3,000 round belt. We had ten of these ammo bags ready. We had two foot lockers full with 30 round M1-30 carbine mags and one M-2 carbine full auto. We had 3 foot lockers full of 20 round M-16 mags and ten cases of M-79 HE rounds. Our bunker never got over run. a weapon without sufficient ammo is just a club.

Anonymous said...

The false premise is that the Second Amendment is a bullet point to debate.
Folks, understand this please - The Second Amendment is the product of the debate, the outcome. The Second Amendment is not something to be decided, it is the decision made.

The real reason there is no debating them is because there is no debate to be had, save one thing - repealing the decision already arrived at, repealing or amendment the enumerated right of the people to keep and bear arms.

None of their "gun control" is constitutional. Criminal action and response to it is one thing, while "gun control" is something totally different.

we do have the right to own, which means there has to be a right to buy and a right to sell - this is the only way to transfer ownership outside gifting. It simply is not within government's purview to inhibit or abridge two party contracts facilitating the purchase and sale of a firearm. Neither is it within its purview to interfere with one who manufactures and sells, or just buys and sells, to many different people. Our right to arms is not what is limited, government itself is limited via this enumeration. Indeed, government is prohibited from infringing upon this exercise of right. Period.

It is time to tell government, and those portending the "regulated" lie for it, to piss off. Nunya. None of your business. "Gun show loophole"? Yeah, that is what they call "Private two-party contract". we must take back the narrative. That us what you say anytime they claim gun show loophole. Retort with - :You mean you want to eliminate the private two-party contract"? Force the truth out there folks! Just speak the truth.

The controllers are beaten, almost entirely, on their own home turf. The Judiciary.
Right now, we have a pretty snappish trifecta. Heller--McDonald---Miller.
Here is what we OWN as of right now as admitted by the Supreme Court of this country - A set of Fundamental, Individual, Enumerated, Inalienable, Uninfringable, Unabridgable, Disconnected from military service, Incorporated right to Own, (which requires both buying and selling as a matter of "Common Sense")and to Carry arms of our choice with a scope of those arms which can be demonstrated as suitable for military conflict. Inseparably, the underlying ability to Use those arms in Defense of Self, Kin and Property cannot be denied as well.

There is no "debate" to have. It is already won. They just want to trick gun owners into debating so the fudds don't realize there is nothing to "debate". For if they did, they would face an onslaught of people simply telling the truth - we have the right to keep and bear arms, and we are going to exercise it whether you folks like it or not. If you attempt to infringe upon our exercise of our right to keep, then we will exercise our right to bear... defending ourselves from your unprovoked aggression accordingly. Got That Grabbers?

Anonymous said...


We Are The Three Percent and We Will Not Comply. Do not take this to mean we are the Lawless, as it is US holding the line at the Constitution itself. It is your "gun control" that is lawless and there is no more ways the words of the Second Amendment can be demonstrated to you to mean exactly what they say than how it is been said here. It is game set and match. You Lose, so accept it, gun grabbers, or reap the reward you so seek in your never-ending pursuit of OUR happiness. The time of tolerance of your antics and reckless disregard of Constitutional limitations has grown tiresome. While we will not shoot first because desire no conflict, let it be as clear as crystal can be, we will indeed shoot back....we will defend the cause of Liberty itself for us and for our posterity. Bet the farm on it, grabbers.

End your denial now, for the good of the Country and your Countrymen. Accept that sometimes people will exercise their rights differently than you would. Understand that this very difference is the glue that holds us all together, and here is why. We have every intent to accept that YOU hold a disflavor for arms. That is perfectly fine with us, with all of us, and we make no attempt to force arms upon you.

We RESPECT that your rights regarding arms may well be exercised by never touching even one. After all, that is your right to exercise as you see fit. All we really ask is that you leave us alone to do the very same thing - exercise our rights as we see fit. Mutual respect, and the peace it foments, is there to be had, if you want it. All you have to do is stop infringing upon that which declares itself that it Shall Not Be Infringed. All you grabbers have to do is....nothing. Just Stop It. Let It Go. Be Still. Just Leave Us Alone. Ok? Deal?

Anonymous said...

It is not the gun grabbing it is the demand to control others. You can not control large numbers of people if they can shoot you for your efforts. Only a moron willingly disarms himself for someone that has the power to kill. Everywhere gun control has been instituted around the world, he government of that county has killed far more people than the criminal murder rates ever were. the last statistics I have read claim that the total number of people killed by the governments in countries where gun control exists is passing 104 million in the last 50 years.