What’s the Point of Arguing With Anti-Gunners? Question of the Day

Trying to nail down an anti-gunner on the question of confiscation is like trying to wrap your arms around a greased pig. They duck, dodge, weave and squirm so much you simply never get a straight answer out of them.

Most of us on this side of the question think that’s because the last thing they want is to divulge what they’re really after — total civilian disarmament. An Australian-style turn-in that will leave only criminals and victims of horrific boating accidents with the option of armed self defense. But saying that out loud, on camera, will make for useful electoral campaign fodder for the pro-2A side. Never mind that hearing the truth would scare the hell out of the voting public.

So the question is, what’s the point? As satisfying as it may be to watch a skilled interviewer like Tucker Carlson try to pin down someone like Richard Goodstein — even if he MOPS THE FLOOR with him — why bother? Besides filling up a segment on cable news, it ultimately gets us nowhere. Lots of sound and fury signifying nothing. Which is why don’t bother to watch interviews like this any more. You?


  1. avatar former water walker says:

    It seems leftards are lining up to be on Tucker. Even as he eviscerates his “guests”. I do have a bone to pick with him-he rarely if ever critiscizes the DONALD. Do I engage weenies? Not really…I usually make sport of them.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      At the begining of the interview the dude pointed out that Donald Trump was the only elected Federal official to say, “Lets take their guns first and figure out the rest later.” Carlson said that he couldn’t disagree with Doanld Trump more and that killed that talking point.

      You argue with these people for the sake ( hearts and minds) of the audience, not the arguees.

      1. avatar Pat says:

        @Richard. No, Only Obama and Hillary and other Democrats have supported mass confiscation. Obama said he supported the Australian model, which [b]is[/b] mass confiscation, at least two dozen times.

        In fact in the famous CNN interview, Anderson Cooper noted Obama had pushed the Australian model many times, and gave Obama the chance three times to address Australia’s mass confiscation aspect, and Obama did not exclude that aspect despite Cooper trying to keep Obama from putting his foot in his mouth.

  2. avatar 2aguy says:

    To help educate the uninformed American voter. Most Americans do not pay attention to gun issues…but they get spoon fed anti gun information in the news they watch, the television shows they watch and the movies they watch. Also, as they go about their day and if guns come up in polite conversation, odds are they will have the latest anti gun talking point parroted back to them from another uninformed American who also absorbed it from those media sources.

    We need to take every opportunity to show that the facts, the truth and the reality are not on the side of gun control….and the only way to do that sometimes is to engage anti gunners simply to have a stage to speak from. I am on websites debating this issue all the time. I am there not to change the mind of anti gunners….I am there for the uninformed people who might click on the thread out of curiosity….and also to put out the facts in a way that they can be shared by other pro 2nd Amendment supporters…they will see how anti gun points can be refuted, they will see information links to help them with this….they will hear about pro gun sites like The Truth About Guns which I link to all the time……getting out there and fighting on every front is what we have to do to keep our gun Rights.

    1. avatar Bloving says:

      I sincerely believe a majority of people who will say they favor more gun owner control laws do not actually vote that way… they simply say “yeah, sure. Sounds good” when asked by a biased poll but they neither care enough nor are knowledgeable enough to really have a valid opinion.
      So does that mean the self-proclaimed Republicans that are virtue signalling to the Bigots by throwing gun owners aside right now are wasting their time? Yup. Because the soft bigots won’t remember… but the gun owners will.

    2. avatar Alan Esworthy says:

      I agree with you about having a beneficial effect on any audience. In the absence of an audience, though, I usually ridicule a gun grabber and laugh. It really gets their blood pressure up and is highly enjoyable.

  3. avatar TroutsBane says:

    To understand their point of view. The more you know, the better you can debate.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      True. It would be better if the other side actually engaged in debate. They generally do not.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Phil Wilson for the win!

        Gun-grabbers do not debate in the strictest sense of the word. Rather, gun-grabbers keep vomiting words until something resonates with their opponent on an emotional level or until they are able to browbeat their opponent into submission.

        The fundamental problem is people who operate on emotion and fantasy. They have no absolute standards of right and wrong. They have no standards of fact. Trying to argue and reason with them is like trying to chase leaves swirling around buildings on a windy Autumn day.

  4. avatar Tile floor says:

    I try to correct them on misinformation they spout that I can immediately factually disprove (should have aimed for the leg, AR is extremely powerful, gun registration laws, etc). That way I can undermine their argument by illustrating their ignorance. Then you hit them with the ol “why are you arguing what you don’t understand” argument then rip them to shreds when they resort to emotional sandbagging.

  5. avatar MarkPA says:

    It’s a good question. An alternate way of putting the same question might be: ‘WHICH, of many candidate points, WOULD be worth arguing with Anti-Gunners?’

    As long as we eagerly “take the bait” and argue the points that the Anti’s throw at us we will always be treading water at best; at worst, sinking in the public-opinion polls. Why are we so eager to take the bait? Are we fish?

    Why wouldn’t it make more sense to find a point to argue that would likely gain the most traction with open-minded witnesses to the debate? The Anti’s would duck the issue but it would be apparent to the audience that they are doing so.

    The point I propose we emphasize is the right-to-BEAR arms. Why is it that 8 – 10 States are still Won’t-Issue when there are 40+ States that are Shall-Issue or Constitutional-Carry? Even DC is now Shall-Issue; why DC but not NYC? Why is it that you must be a billionaire or a celebrity to get a CWP in NYC? Why do you have to bribe the NYPD $16,000 to get a CWP? Do billionaires and celebrities carry large quantities of cash or jewelry that make them prime targets of armed robbery? Don’t billionaires and celebrities hire armed guards to protect them? Isn’t a petite working woman at greater risk of rape or robbery than a billionaire or celebrity? Why won’t SCOTUS take a case that would resolve what seems to be a very obvious and easily answered question?

    1. avatar ironicatbest says:

      Because the petite working woman should be a billionaire too, this is America after all, everyone can be a billionaire if they want to be, either she’s not working hard enough or not applying herself. Evidently she must be a loser, henceforth she doesn’t matter.

      1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        “…everyone can be a billionaire if they want to be…”

        No, that would be equality of outcome, a standard that only makes sense if everyone is basically equal in ability. Revealed, your (leftist) perspective is (unless you are being sarcastic; can’t really tell these days).

  6. avatar ANG Pilot says:

    There is no point. He DOES want to confiscate all guns in the hands of ordinary citizens.

    People like Goodstein just believe, as an article of faith, that civilian gun ownership is bad. His idea of compromise is for our side to recognize that we’re wrong and he’s right. Liberals think they’re morally superior to us and that we’re backwards and therefore incapable of not living our life without their regulating us.

    People like him don’t trust “common people” with too much power. We’re all supposed to defer to our liberal superiors and do as we’re told….It’s for our own good.

    They won’t change their mind, no matter how many facts are shown to them; and I’m sure as heck not changing my position!

  7. avatar Ralph says:

    I avoid any and all contact with antis, since I am convinced that stupidity is contagious. My contagion theory explains why there are so many Democrats.

  8. avatar Broke_It says:

    Because lets face it, this is what passes for entertainment in this life. We live in such an artificial environment we’re only arguing theory at this point. Keeps the blood pressure down to watch more than participate.

  9. avatar CarlosT says:

    Neutral spectators. Make your points calmly, succinctly, and rationally, and you can bring people who are open-minded to your side. It worked with me.

    You will very, very rarely convince your opponent, who is emotionally invested in their side. However, if you present your case well, someone who is listening in may actually consider your points and allow themselves to think about the issue more deeply than they had before. All of a sudden, ideas they accepted uncritically will be cast in new light. Positions once thought unthinkable are now maybe on the table.

  10. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    You don’t argue…you attack. Want to deny my 2nd? Then I have every right, and duty to deny your 1st.

    Disrupt and deplatform them…if at all possible make them cry.

  11. avatar CalGunsMD says:

    The purpose of engaging in any debate is to inform and influence the audience, not the opponent.

    Exposing them, their inconsistencies, their veiled terms and true intentions is important.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      The purpose of engaging in any debate is to destroy the enemy.

      Everything else is simply a waste of time and energy. Debate is like war, there is only one winner and there are no rules. Either bring your A game or don’t show up.

  12. avatar little horn says:

    good god, that was a pleasure to watch. because of Tuckers response and tenacity.

  13. avatar gp says:

    Anti-gunners (let’s just say all SJWs) never argue in good faith. Since they get most of their news from comedians, they think like comedians. Their concept of “reason” is ridicule, denouncement, absurdity, and one-liners. Therefore they are unreachable by logic, even in those rare cases when they allow themselves to engage a logical debater.

    As progressives, they are always by definition opposed to tradition and the status quo, therefore can never be satisified without constant change. They are convinced both of their moral superiority, and that those who disagree with them are vermin.

    What’s the point of arguing with them? No point, but we still need to speak for ourselves, even if they don’t listen or comprehend.

  14. avatar Johnny108 says:

    I’ve converted several anti-gunners with facts- 3 of which are now avid shooters and very
    Sometimes it’s worth it.

  15. avatar Ironhead says:

    Never argue with an idiot. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
    I wont argue. If they actually want to have a conversation about it thats fine. We will converse.

  16. avatar ironicatbest says:

    No I don’t watch interviews. I don’t argue with 2a abolisher’s. There’s no use arguing with someone to stupid to realize the 2a is part of the DNA of bill of rights, breaking that link changes the molecular structure of that molecule.Either out of stupidity or an agenda they are propagating changing the Constitution to a “we but not for thee”,not realizing they could lose their ‘We also, that makes me angry and anger gets us in trouble

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      The problem isn’t that most of them are stupid it’s that they are victims of our educational system.

      A lot of older folks fancy themselves as having come in before the system went to shit but they didn’t. Now, of course that’s universally true but IME they need to have graduated high school before about 1970 to have avoided most of it.

      I won’t get into a long winded treatise on the topic but a goodly portion of our population has been intentionally mis-educated and it’s REALLY starting to show. They don’t know much and they don’t have any understanding or trust in most of the systems that make the Western World what it is and has been for 500 years. It’s similar to the last 50 years of the Roman Empire as described by Gibbon. Scary shit.

      I hope you and your dog are well today.

  17. avatar anarchyst says:

    The problem is, we have allowed the anti Second Amendment crowd to define the terms.
    A firearm is a tool which possesses no evil intent on its own. Assigning intent to an inanimate object is the epitome of insanity. Demonizing a weapon on “looks alone” also marks the accuser as an unstable individual who is also insane. Call them out on their illogic and insanity.
    Another dirty tactic the anti-Second Amendment crowd uses exposes children to potential and actual harm by putting them in “gun-free zones”. These people care not one wit about children, but uses them for their own nefarious purposes.
    We need to TAKE BACK the argument…
    When the antis blame the firearm for the actions of a criminal, state that: “a firearm is an inanimate object, subject only to the intent of the user. Firearms ARE “equalizers” and are used to preserve life and make a 90 lb. woman equal to a 200 lb. criminal”.
    When the antis attempt to justify their “gun free zones” counter their misguided argument with “you mean, criminal safety zones” or “victim disarmament zones”.
    State that “we protect our money, banks, politicians and celebrities, buildings and facilities with PEOPLE WITH GUNS, but protect our children with “gun-free zone” signs”.
    When the antis state that: “you don’t need and AR-15”, counter with, “Who are YOU to consider what I need or want?”
    When the antis criticize AR-15s in general, counter with: “you mean the most popular rifle of the day, use able by even the smallest, weakest person as a means of self-defense. Besides, AR-15s are FUN to shoot”. Offer to take them to the range and supply them with an AR-15, ammunition and range time. I have made
    many converts this way.
    When the antis state that: “You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt with”, counter with “AR-15s ARE used for hunting, but in many states, are prohibited from being used to take large game because they are underpowered”.
    When the antis state that: “AR-15s are high powered rifles”, correct them by stating that “AR-15s with the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge are considered medium-powered weapons–NOT “high-powered” by any means”.
    When the antis state that: “the Constitution was written during the time of muskets, and that the Second Amendment should only apply to “weapons of that time period”, state that: “by your logic, the First Amendment should not apply to modern-day telecommunications, internet, television, radio, public-address systems, books and newspapers produced on high-speed offset printing presses. Only “town-criers” and Benjamin Franklin type printing presses would be covered under the First Amendment”.
    When the antis state that “only law enforcement and government should possess firearms”, remind them of the latest school shooting, as well as Columbine, where “law enforcement” SAT ON THEIR HANDS while children were being murdered, citing “officer safety”, afraid to challenge the shooter, despite being armed to the hilt. The government-run murderous sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco are also good examples of government (mis)use of firearms. Let’s not forget the millions murdered under communism by their governments AFTER their firearms were confiscated.
    This tome can be used to counter any argument against any infringement of our Second Amendment.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      The problem is, we have allowed the anti Second Amendment crowd to define the terms.

      In that I agree. After that it is all bullshit. There is NO Constitutional authority given the Government to restrict the free exercise of rights in any way. See, that was a lot easier.

  18. avatar pg2 says:

    LOL, much like of trying to talk facts to psurge(16V) about government control over peoples health care choices and vaccines. No matter how much fact and logic you present, you get nowhere, communists aren’t interested in truth or logic. Too funny.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Does the government force anyone to get vaccines? I’m pretty sure “the” government only requires people (children) to get vaccines in order to attend public school. Or at least that’s my experience.

      Also, vaccines would be a subset of healthcare, so it’s a little silly to say “healthcare choices and vaccines.” This word choice also implies that 16V and Serge are in favor over Obamacare, which I find a dubious proposition.

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        You’re comfortable requiring kids to play Russian roulette with vaccine needles to attend public and private schools? In several states there are no exemptions for these inadequately studied products so families that cannot home school for financial or whatever reasons are forced to receive them. I am implying that psurge and 16V are the same poster. And yes, he has openly stated many times that he believes the public, you, me and everyone on this forum, is not intelligent enough to make their own health care decisions and the government has the authority to force whatever medical procedure it deems you need.

        1. avatar cisco kid says:

          to PG2 (Phantom Geek). Inoculations have been stopping pandemics since the 1700’s Moron and yes they were crude back then but some of them actually worked and in modern times times the times that they have not worked are very few compared to the millions of lives they have saved and continue to save. Only a Moron of your retarded caliber would ever preach to people to not get vaccinated. Its hard to believe that in the 21st Century with so much information available in regards to the history of vaccines we have babbling lunatics like you screaming from the rooftops of mental institutions about a subject you know exactly zero about.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I am now clear on what you meant. Thank you for clarifying.

          Depending on the vaccination, I am comfortable with the odds. Deadly diseases that are easily communicable are usually worse than vaccines. (I am completely unfamiliar with what vaccinations are required as I don’t have any children).

        3. avatar Pat says:

          @ cisco, owning a gun IS like getting a vaccine. Non law enforcement civilians with firearms prevent between one million and three million crimes per year.

        4. avatar Pg2 says:

          @TX, some vaccines do seem to be effective in preventing the infection they were designed to prevent, others not so much, and others not at all. What we don’t know is the long term health outcomes of vaccinated people vs non vaccinated people. This study has never been done, despite having more than enough non vaccinated people to make this comparison. We also know vaccines can be dangerous, and even lethal. What we don’t know is how dangerous or how often lethal, again, this has never been studied short or long term, despite what the media will tell you day in and day out.

        5. avatar Pg2 says:

          Pserge=16V=cisco kid…..how many profiles you troll with surge?

        6. avatar Pg2 says:

          @Pat, no, exercising your 2nd Amendment rights and owning a firearm is NOTHING like injecting untested biological agents mixed with established carcinogens and neurotoxins.

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        Or engage in “health care” including as a volunteer EMS. Or in the military.

      3. avatar pg2 says:

        You’re comfortable requiring kids to play Russian roulette with vaccine needles to attend public and private schools? In several states there are no exemptions for these inadequately studied products so families that cannot home school for financial or whatever reasons are forced to receive them. I am implying the psurge and 16V are the same poster. And yes, he has openly stated many times that he believes the public, you, me and everyone on this forum, is not intelligent enough to make their own health care decisions and the government has the authority to force whatever medical procedure it deems you need.

      4. avatar pg2 says:

        Looks like TTAG is deleting my response. You can’t argue with a communist.

    2. avatar cisco kid says:

      A good case can be made to force even adults to get vaccines as when they do not they not only very often kill themselves but end up spreading diseases that kill hundreds and even thousands. Its a question of the safety of the majority over a few morons who refuse to get vaccinated. Its the major reason many diseases just never die out. When the big polio epidemic hit people panicked and got their shots and it was seldom heard of for over 1/2 century showing how effective vaccines can be.

      Long term effects? I am 69 years old and have gotten a ton of vaccines and none of them ever affected my health in the least. By now my generation would have proven if vaccines had any detrimental effects as 98 per cent of my classmates are still living. We had a class of 260 people. So all that ignorant Right Wing Paranoia is just listening to too many Morons like Rush Limbhead ranting on the radio entertaining the “unwashed”.

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Nice piece of spam-fiction Cisco, I’ll make a deal, you present some evidenced based science to support any opinion you’ve posted about vaccines, and I’ll be happy to change my mind. Until then, you’re just another troll intentionally lying online for some ulterior motive, or you’re a sad lonely person starving for attention, or you have some serious psychological issues, and should seek help.

        1. avatar cisco kid says:

          To Phantom Geek.————

          You can lead a hillbilly to knowledge but you cannot make him think.

        2. avatar pg2 says:

          @ciscopurgekid- Lol, nice deflection/avoidance.

  19. avatar Chris Morton says:

    The best way to prove that somebody’s a liar is to give them the opportunity to [provably] lie.

    “Movement” anti-gunners are 100% pathological liars. Give them every opportunity to prove it.

    Then use it against them every chance you get.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      They don’t prove anything, they rationalize. And in such you are arguing with a person afflicted with a mental defect. Where’s the win in that?

      1. avatar Chris Morton says:

        I don’t give a damn about anti-gun cultists.

        I care about the bystanders constantly bombarded by lies.

        Normal people, when they discover that they’ve been lied to, react with anger. I stoke that anger against anti-gun cultists.

  20. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    How do you deal with a person that wants the power to tell others what they can and can’t do regardless of the situation without research, facts, history and reason.

    These people are commonly described as children who eventually mature and evolve into adults with responsibilities and accountability. Two virtues that are no longer a priority for parents and schools.

    So the result is learned environmental behavior that produces immature adults that neither care for or are interested in personal accountability and responsibility.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      How do you deal with a person (who) that wants the power to tell others what they can and can’t do

      With extreme prejudice.

  21. avatar it's just Boris says:

    “What’s the Point of Arguing With Anti-Gunners?”

    Target acquisition?

    1. avatar Gman says:

      There is no point to engaging a target in discussion. The time for talking already ended.

  22. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    There are four reasons to argue with someone who has taken a position.

    1. Sport. It’s often fun to argue. Sometimes it’s fun just to spin someone up.
    2. Practice. Arguing will make you better at arguing. Arguing a specific point or topic will make you better at arguing that point or topic.
    3. Convince the Audience. Someone who has taken a position and committed to it is not at all likely to change his mind. An audience member who has no opinion or hasn’t invested anything in that opinion, is open to arguments.
    4. Convince the Anti. While it is unlikely, it could happen, especially if they aren’t very committed, you know what you are talking about, and you use proper persuasive techniques (basically, you don’t actually “argue” with them). “An argument explains what someone believes, while persuasion attempts to change someone else’s opinion.” from differencebetween.net.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      That’s all fine and dandy for a land shark who dispassionately talks for a living to convince people to see his perspective. But there is no reason to carry on a discussion with someone who thinks the world is flat. No amount of talk will change their rationalization of that fantasy. Equally there is no reason to carry on discussion with people who think that such a thing as “reasonable limits” exist for our rights. There are NO Constitutional limits upon the free exercise of our rights. NONE>

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        “There are NO Constitutional limits upon the free exercise of our rights. NONE>”

        Tell it to the judge … and legislators … and executive officers … and voters … and jurors.

        1. avatar Gman says:

          Name one.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Constitutional limit on our rights or person, in the many categories I mentioned, who will make sure the full weight of government comes crashing down on you when your only argument is that the law you are charged with breaking violates this or that portion of the Bill of Rights?

          My point is that people elect government officials who will make law and appoint other government officials who will enforce those laws that we believe are obvious violations of the Constitution. If the legislators, executive officers (cops, prosecutors, etc.), judges, and jurors all are ok with a constitutional violation, your argument might be lofty and principled, but that is about it.

          The powers that be (really any one of the groups I mentioned) must be convinced to leave our right to keep and bear arms alone, regardless of any philosophical truths because that’s how the world works.

          If you want to ignore reality, that’s fine by me.

      2. avatar cisco kid says:

        Wrong there are many Constitutional limits because the Constitution was never meant give anyone unlimited rights. The Founding Fathers thought that common sense would tell people that but they did not live during these times. You cannot yell fire in a theater to prove your 1st Amendment Rights because it would result in the accidental death of people nor can you use racist demagoguery in most civilized countries (the U.S. is not civilized) you cannot use racist rhetoric when it stirs up Right Wing Nazi’s which then threatens the lives of other people especially minorities.

        And last but not least the only rights people have ever had is what the Supreme Court gives them not the Constitution as the Courts have almost always ruled according to public opinion not the Constitution such as putting thousands of innocent Americans in Concentration Camps in WWII, ruling that Slaves were not human beings therefore not protected by the Constitution, deliberately taking away peoples rights to vote or eat in a restaurant reserved for whites, preventing Minorities from marrying Whites. The lists would fill pages but you get the picture. Reality has proven the only thing the Constitution is really good for is wiping your ass with it especially when it comes to gun rights.

  23. avatar rtw1951 says:

    To make their heads explode.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      A true, just, and righteous calling indeed.

  24. avatar Sian says:

    It’s not for the ones you’re arguing with, they’ll never change their mind, at least not until they get home invaded or something.

    No, it’s for the audience.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      The only counter to an anti-gun person is to place them in an inescapable room with a gun and cell phone on a table. Then let a Charlie Manson into the room with them and wait for them to pick up the gun. Argument over.

  25. avatar Nanashi says:

    The point of arguing with most people isn’t to change their mind, it’s to make everyone else see how stupid the opponent is.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      But most of the everyone(s) are equally stupid and are incapable of understanding stupid.

  26. avatar Gman says:

    What’s the point of arguing with the people on this site or anywhere else for that matter because most don’t seem to have any understanding of our founding principles. There is no discussion. There is NO Constitutional authority to restrict the free exercise of any right, much less the right to keep and bear arms. And yet all I see here is banter about what should be allowed and what shouldn’t. Let me get this straight…

    The Bill of Rights in general and the 2nd specifically neither grants nor limits the rights of the People in any way. The BoR is a limit upon Government only. The entire discussion about the militia is irrelevant other than a reason the founders believed in protecting the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. It is not the only reason nor does it act as a limit upon the People. However, as evidenced by Miller (1939) it does tell Government that the right of the People to keep and bear arms INCLUDES modern useful military arms.

    So I’m not sure what point there is to argue, regardless of the audience.

  27. avatar Mark N. says:

    A very good friend of mine, who actually owns two Ruger minis (one of each caliber) would argue that the militia clause demonstrates that the right to bear arms is subject to regulation; if told that the Supreme court says he is wrong about that, he would simply respond, “Well, the Supreme court is wrong.” (He is also adamantly opposed to the concealed or open carriage of handguns, but other than “it’s stupid,” I could never get a reasoned response as to why this should be so.)
    After Parkland, my son, who is also a gun owner, was extremely upset and emotional: “No one needs an AR,” he declaimed. I tried to discuss it with him, but he became so irrational he had to walk away and get himself in control. BECAUSE the reaction–as it is with many antis–is emotional, rational arguments fall on deaf ears.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      A very good friend of mine, who actually owns two Ruger minis (one of each caliber) would argue that the militia clause demonstrates that the right to bear arms is subject to regulation;

      Miller v US (1939) actually upheld that to be true. Though incorrectly, they upheld the restrictions on short barrel shotguns because they (falsely) believed they were not of use to the militia or of use in the military. That SCOTUS held that only military useful weapons should be protected. It is ironic that the very majority ruling in Miller actually invalidates the restrictions upon machine guns. No one could argue that machine guns are not useful to the military. However, all of this WAS wrong because the Government has no Constitutional authority to limit the free exercise of our right to keep and bear arms. NONE. Laws may be crafted to punish that exercise when it harms others, but not until.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Yeah, *except*!! No one has ever taken a “machine gun” argument to SCOTUS. Which is strange, seems to me, since in the Miller decision they clearly indicated how they would rule if the case were presented the next day. Military arms were precisely what WAS protected, and nothing else.

        1. avatar cisco kid says:

          Yes you are quite right except you do not study the history of the Supreme Charlatans. They vote with public opinion and always have and today now they have reversed themselves once again (So what else is new?) as public opinion dictates that any gun that is military or even looks like a military arm is not Constitutional and last summer the Courts said just that and when appealed the corrupt Supreme Court refused to hear the Maryland case giving the green light for all the States to ban anything and everything and that is exactly what they have been doing since last summer even before the Florida massacre .

    2. avatar Pat says:

      “after parkland”

      Va-Tech was a much bigger shooting and done with handgun

  28. avatar Gman says:

    Tucker Carlson is simply another talking head; just one that leans right. He is equally bereft of the fundamental knowledge of the Constitution and guns in general as all the other talking heads that lean the other way. Don’t get me wrong, I like him. But he is not doing any of us a favors. Equally, Dana Loesch and Marco Rubio are just as dismally incapable of articulating why our founding principles are so important and that then entire discussion about guns is Constitutionally, and rationally, pointless. The only reason we are talking about guns in the first place is the lefts irrational argument that the Government has some magical ability, one we never gave them, to regulate guns at all.

  29. avatar Pg2 says:


    Communists are not interested in facts or logic. Remember, these are the same people that intend to disarm us and for us to openly accept immigrants.

    1. avatar cisco kid says:

      To Pg2 Phantom Geek our forum White Supremacist.

      Real Americans realize that the country was founded by immigrants and made great by them and that continues today. And the people who are against immigrants are mouthing the same filth that Hitler and Trump did when they were appealing to their Right Wing Nazi hard core base. The Right Wing were the ones responsible for utterly destroying Germany by causing WWII and the Trumpites are well on their way of doing the same to America by dividing it because they like the German Nazi’s need a scapegoat goat to blame America’s problems on. For German Nazi’s it was the Jews. For Trump Nazi’s its every minority, Jews, Catholics, Refugees, Immigrants, Muslim Americans and anyone else that might not give the stiff arm salute, promote destruction of the 1st Amendment, wave the racist Confederate flag ,and not belong to their one ideology and their one religion.

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Lol, you know the trolls run out of material when he/she starts lobbing “white supremacist” labels around. Get some new material, your act is stale.

        1. avatar cisco kid says:

          To Phantom Geek

          Quote————————-Lol, you know the trolls run out of material when he/she starts lobbing “white supremacist” labels around. Get some new material, your act is stale.———————————–quote

          And you are still a Racist White Supremacist but your too much of a coward to even stand up for your own Nazi warped ideology. If you do not believe that America was and still is for all religions and nationalities get the hell out. We don’t need or want the “unwashed” here.

        2. avatar pg2 says:

          ciscopurgekid, get the mental health care you need. It’s no wonder you don’t want others to own firearms, you project your own mental illness/instability outwards onto everyone else.

        3. avatar cisco kid says:

          to Phantom Geek————————–
          Quote———————- It’s no wonder you don’t want others to own firearms, ————–quote

          Its only mentally deranged white supremacists like you that should not be allowed to own guns as guys like you are a threat to everyone. You have proven that many times on this forum by ranting against immigrants, refugees and all minorities. I sometimes wonder if there is any group you do not hate, most of all yourself. Hating all those groups of people is a very good indication sub-conscientiously you hate yourself.

  30. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    There’s no point in trying to discuss logic with somebody who won’t listen to logic. Gun control is an article of faith with the people who’s religion is the state. They can’t listen. If they listen and understood they might agree, and that would risk excommunication by their patron saint Obama.

    1. avatar Arc says:

      Exactly, no point in trying to fix stupid. Logic does not apply to the illogical and the only thing that crushes temper tantrums is FORCE. Shall not be infringed, and enforce it.

  31. avatar Advocate says:

    Mark Twain said that your should never argue with fools, because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    It is also important to understand that the person on the other side isn’t the real target of the debate. It’s the people watching/reading.

    Thank You for Smoking captured this concept perfectly:

  32. avatar cisco kid says:

    The students protests are actually working. Republicans Rats are deserting their pro gun rights stands across the U.S. and today New York announced mass gun confiscation and melt downs.


    1. avatar Pat says:

      New York gun registration runs about 10%.
      As far as laws taking guns from abusers, it is already a crime for them to possess them, the new law is an enforcement law. Republicans don’t have much problem signing those since 90% of abusers are Democrats 🙂

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      From what has been reported, I’m not certain I disagree with the position of NY. I have heard repeatedly of the emphasis on due process, first in obtaining the order, and if it is not honored by the target, the granting of a warrant (separate stages). When most arguments (including the Prez), boil down to “just take them by force, fuck due process!”, I find that a breath of fresh air.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email