answers

Answers

THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."

WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns."

WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better we should require every citizen to carry a gun."

THEY SAY: "Guns are only for killing people."

WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. The hangman's noose, lethal injection, gas chamber and electric chair are designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high-capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest-capacity weapon possible.

THEY SAY: "If we don't pass this law, it will be like the Wild West, with shootouts all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it.

WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no country, city or town has experienced what you are describing, that's not important. What IS important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important than anything else is, why don't we throw out the constitution? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch the criminals, crime and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?"

THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about limitations you will still be able to have a gun."

WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't apply for licences. blah blah blah."

FLAW: You have implied that if registration DID reduce crime, it would be a good idea.

WE SHOULD SAY: "The fact that this law applies to people who want to own a legal firearm tells me that it's not about crime prevention, it's about harassment. Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a 'safe' one with the government as chief nanny."

THEY SAY In decades past gun ownership was common in South Africa, citizens had muskets or bolt action rifles. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s or R4s. I suppose you think we should all have Atomic bombs

WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh..."

WE SHOULD SAY: Soldiers in that period were each issued muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding shells. In 2000, soldiers are issued R4s, R1s, etc. but not howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and used fixed type. After all, no one a hundred years ago foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission."

THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but SAGA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests difficult licensing and registration of these weapons of mass destruction."

WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.

WE SHOULD SAY: "You know, driving is a luxury, whereas firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitutional right to life. But let's put that aside for a moment. It's interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here you can AT ANY AGE go into any dealer and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size as you want, and you don't need to do anything if you only use them on private property. If you DO want to use them on public property, you can get a drivers license at age 16. No waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any dealer and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a license good anywhere in the country to shoot small calibre firearms. At 18 he could get a licence for any firearm and as many as wanted and use these guns on public property."

FINAL COMMENT, useful with most all arguments:

YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything."

THEY SAY: "Huh?"

YOU SAY: "Well, passing the Firearms Control Bill won't have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, the ANC is not going to open up internment camps or massacre people. But think of your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it POSSIBLE that a person like that MIGHT be in control here some time in the next 20, 30, or 40 years, with more than 51% of parliament behind him? If that does happen, do you REALLY want your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them to have been stripped of it BY YOU?

There are more, but I think you're getting the idea now.

Rick Tompkins

--
"What good fortune for governments that the people do not think." Adolph Hitler

____________

Stolen and adapted from a Usenet news group [talk.politics.guns] posting by Rick Tompkins

HOME

INDEX