A Quick and Dirty Guide to Putting Gun Grabbers in Their Place (Part I)

By Steve Sheldon / 9 January 2013 / 19 comments

MP900302919 How often have you heard someone repeat an oft spoken line about the Second Amendment being about hunting or that no one needs to own a 30 round magazine? Worse yet, how often have you thought of a great response five minutes after the conversation ended? Due to the vast selection of stupid things gun grabbers say, it was necessary to split this column over two weeks. Learn them, love them, and repeat them. Here’s the first volley against the madness:

One does not need an assault rifle to hunt.

First, before crushing them with your brilliance and complete command of the Constitution, clarify the statement and ask them to define “assault rifle.” There is a 90% chance that they will not know what an “assault rifle” really is and you can explain to them the difference between select fire that includes full auto (which is an “assault rifle”) and a common semi-automatic lookalike that only fires one round per pull of the trigger. Machine guns have been highly regulated since 1934 and there has been next to zero crimes committed with true “assault rifles”.

Your comment assumes that the 2nd Amendment is solely about hunting and target shooting. Apparently you missed history class and have little if any understanding of our nation’s founding. The 2nd Amendment has everything to do with protecting the citizenry from a government interested in taking away freedoms of the governed through force. (That’s what prompted the Revolution, remember?) Our founders wanted an armed populace capable of defending themselves, their property, their families and their freedoms with the same firepower as carried by those that would take them away.

Recent statistics show that hammers, knives, and blunt objects killed more people than assault rifles but don’t let real facts get in the way of your ridiculous assumptions.

We need to keep “killing machines” off the streets.

First, your assumption is that the gun is somehow responsible for the crime. Are you trying to tell me that guns, regardless of the type, load themselves and create mayhem without a human component? If your assumption were true, then gun shows, gun ranges, gun stores, and gun museums, etc. would be some of the most dangerous places on earth, yet they are among the safest. How can you explain that if guns are the problem? If safety is your concern, why not start with automobiles or prescription drugs? They kill far more people every year than guns do.

Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country yet is number one in murders. It is statistically undeniable that the more you restrict gun ownership, the more the violent crime rate goes up. The idea that somehow by restricting any kind of firearm you will then be able to curtail criminal’s use of them in committing crimes is preposterous, completely illogical, and goes against all statistical data on the subject. (And, don’t repeat to me the trumped up and skewed “statistics” from the Brady Center)
The Founders had muskets when they wrote the 2nd Amendment, so it does not apply to modern guns.

Actually, they preferred rifles which were more accurate and technologically advanced than the smooth bore muskets used by the British, so your argument that they did not embrace technology is completely unsupported by historical fact. Furthermore, they did not have computers, the internet, radio, television, or microphones, but all are protected today by the First Amendment. Are you going to tell me that free speech only applies to actual speeches, not radio and television; or that freedom of the press only applies to actual printing presses and not ink jet printers or a web blog?

There is no practical use for 30 round magazines other than for killing larger numbers of people at the hands of crazed killers.

There is no use for a car that goes 200 MPH or a meal over 1,500 calories, but we allow them because of things called freedom and personal responsibility. Do you really want to live in a police state where the government controls every aspect of our lives?

Your assumption presumes that there is no practical use for a large capacity magazine yet our soldiers and police officers prefer them because they allow one to carry more ammunition while defending oneself. Why shouldn’t a free citizen living in a free society be allowed the same protections as those who would rule them by force otherwise? (See point number one)

Be on the lookout for next week’s column where we’ll smash the following assertions:

We need to close the “gun show loophole.”
Why would anyone need to buy thousands of rounds of ammunition?
All guns should be banned.
What good is the 2nd Amendment when our military has Predator drones and nuclear bombs?

And finally, I’ll share some other excellent one-liners just for fun. Stay tuned and keep your powder dry. The best is yet to come!

Check out Doug Giles' new book 'Sandy Hook Massacre'!

« Previous Post

Steve Sheldon is a lifelong outdoorsman, hunter, gun-rights enthusiast and widely published author. Steve spent a dozen years in private industry as an investment broker and owner of multiple businesses. He served the National Rifle Association almost ten years in various capacities before moving to Americans for Prosperity in his current role of External Affairs Officer. Steve has held various church leadership roles over the years and served in a jail ministry.

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

MassPatriot

The counter to the drones & nuclear weapons argument…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evacuation_Day_(Massachusetts)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Fort_Ticonderoga
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Allen
Jim Bell

Why do we let them call them “hi capacity magazines, the military changed to 30rd mags in the 70′s, if 40 years doesn’t make them “standard capacity” I don’t know what will!
Braden Lynch

Looking forward to the next installments.
http://www.facebook.com/garrey.mcvicker Garrey McVicker

well if they force u.s. to give up guns, then what needis there for police, body gaurds, or even milt. so what cent s is there for having guns.but the world is far from perfit, so i;ll keep my guns. untill the world disarms and the goverment isnt gready any more and theres no, hate i;ll keep my guns thank you. and the goverment can go, to hell. in witch is where they are sending us.
dazedandconfused

You can’t fix stupid…….but nice try. They are never gonna change. I’ve had the argument too many times.
BFD

Many gun controllers not only do not understand what motivates those who disagree with them, they do not like them, reflexively calling them gun nuts, a reaction as foolish as it is arrogant and bigoted.
Zardoz

I’d like others’ opinions on if there is a “line” to be drawn, and, if so, where that “line” would be.
I read one anti-gunner’s comment that asked if people should be allowed to own Apache helicopters; and I responded that at $20 Million per unit … be my guest.
But then another one asked if Americans should be allowed to own chemical or biological WMD; and I thought, “o.k., there’s a line I can agree with.”
I know that semi-auto and 30-rd magazines are NOT the line. Personally, I think the line — if there is one — is well beyond full-auto.
So, maybe there’s a line, and maybe there is no line. But does the author, or anyone else, have a quick and reasonable response that most people (aside from the anti-gunners) would accept?
- Phillip_in_TX
  
  We do have access to biological & chemical weapons. If you go into the average house or apartment you would be surprised at the amount of chemicals in them. Or, just go to a local home improvement store. Making various things is not rocket science. Sometimes, people do it by accident, mixing things they should not.
  
  So, where to “draw the line?” I believe we will find that out quickly enough will all the crap going on in Washington D.C. We are sitting on a “powder keg” and the idiots in Washington D.C. are throwing matches & road flares at it.
TXLady706 TXLady706

why argue the minutia? Just tell them that in order for me to be able to protect myself
FROM our government, I have to have a weapon that is either the equivalent or
BETTER than the federal government. And since I don’t have the luxury to
train on a daily basis and I pay THEM, then the only LOGICAL conclusion is that
THEY should be MORE restricted when approaching ME. That’s if one were to
agree with the SPIRIT of the Constitution. But they don’t and so that is
why it had to be written. LET IT BE WRITTEN, let it be done. WORDS
have meaning, but those that want to CHANGE society have to change the meaning
of the words, so that the document becomes CONFUSED. Confusion is
DELUSION. They are crafty magicians and that is why magicians are
considered in league with the devil per any religion.
- WASP
  
  Why argue at all? The libtards and fascist-democraps have an agenda to disarm the populace, so they aren’t going to listen. The constitution gives us the right to keep and bear, and we do. Don’t debate with ratbags over whether you have civil rights or not.
- LLinLa
  
  I love your logic, TXLady706!
BigMamaTEA

Nice read.
reggiec

I have posted the following several times on different sites because I feel it is the most powerful argument that can be presented to our members of congress and other public officials at all levels. I have added one more sentence to the emails or letters I send. Actually a letter sent by snail mail is more effective as many emails are just deleted by some staffer. Loads of envelopes piling up are hard to ignore. Feel free to cut and paste it into an email or preferably a snail mail letter.
Sorry it is so long but I felt the meaning should be absolutely clear.
*** Added sentence:
If you, as one of my representatives in public office, do anything to negate any portion of my unalienable rights as contained in the Second Amendment of The Constitution of These United States of America; I will do everything in my power to make sure you are never elected to any public office in the future. If you are still not convinced of the true meaning of the Second Amendment, “MOLON LABE”.
Second Amendment meaning:
“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” James Madison
Second Amendment in context as originally intended:
***”The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all that is good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.” – George Washington in address to the 2nd session of the United States Congress.
***“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.” (George Washington)
***”The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone’s 1768 “Commentaries on the Laws of England.”, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court & U.S. Dist. Court of Virginia

***”Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria
Those who argue that the Second Amendment was written just for militias are completely blown out of the water by the following quote from Thomas Jefferson.
“The strongest reason for “PEOPLE” (My emphasis) to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)
James Madison is credited with the writing of the “Bill of Rights” and was pretty clear about the meaning on the Second Amendment.
“The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the “PEOPLE” (My emphasis) with arms.”
Here are a few others who help define the true meaning of the Second Amendment. It becomes very clear upon the examination of the meanings attached to the Second Amendment by our Founding Fathers that the original intent of the Second Amendment is being attacked in order to eventually disarm the American people.
***”I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
***”Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
***”Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
–Tenche Coxe, an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
***”The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
***”That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
– Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
***”Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
–Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
***”No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
***” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
***”The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon…. [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well-regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.”
– Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]
Then there are politicians who insist in taking our Constitution out of context of time and original meaning. Once again, James Madison warned us against this.
“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”
Second Amendment:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be INFRINDGED.”
Arms, in the context and time when our Constitution was written meant the usual arms carried by militia members, everyday citizens or light infantry in the Continental Army. Many of these arms were supplied by their owners for militia duty and were personal weapons initially used for hunting or home defense. They came in all types and calibers; from a 30 cal. squirrel rifle to a 75 cal. smooth bore musket, pistols and shotguns of all types, calibers and gauges. They also included a huge variety of other arms including: knives of every conceivable shape and size, bayonets and swords. Many early citizens also carried tomahawks.
Attempts to control the type and or caliber of arms Americans’ can possess are absolutely against The Constitution and the Second Amendment as it was written and intended. By the supreme law of the land (The Constitution), an American citizen should be able to keep and bear any weapon now used individually by our light infantry soldiers.
Larger weapons such as cannon and mortars that required more than one person to operate were considered to be “ordinance”.
Words have meanings! If those meanings are bastardized all becomes chaos.
Definition of to KEEP: to hold or retain in one’s possession; hold as one’s own.
Definition of to BEAR: to carry, transmit, transport, have a characteristic of and exhibit.
Definition of INFRINGE: to “encroach” upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.
THIS IS THE WORD MOST FORGETEN……INFRINGE!!!!! Read the meaning!!!
Definition of ENCROACH…….. 1: to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another . 2: to advance beyond the usual or proper limits
Be honest…see anything like this going on? Everyone needs to LEARN THE English language.
Why is this so hard to understand? The meaning of the words in the Second Amendment have not changed since the amendment was ratified.
I am not aware of the Second Amendment being repealed or amended.
In reference to arms control by the states; the Fourteenth Amendment Section .1. is crystal clear.
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; (My emphasis) nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Many in politics and or judges cite “precedent” as a justification for the violations of our rights as contained in The Constitution of These United States of America. Precedent only describes what has been done, not if it was done in compliance with the supreme law of the land or in accordance with the oath of office to uphold The Constitution.
- LLinLa
  
  It’s looooong but every word a gem!
http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Wilson-Kingsley/100000397000382 Ann Wilson Kingsley

Piers Morgan and Obama are misrepresenting the gun problem in America. Our gun problem doesn’t exist except as a general homicide problem. We do have a larger homicide rate than in the U.K., but here is the reason: While the U.K. has a population that is only 7.9% Non-White and a mostly stable population, the U.S. has a 35.14% Non-White or Hispanic population with far greater population instability. Far be it from Socialist Piers Morgan to tell the truth about our homicide problem. Our homicide problem is due to a large Non-White and Hispanic population, vast numbers of unassimilated recent immigrants, illegal aliens, and illegal drugs (Mexican Drug Cartels and other illegal drug activity). The rest of North and South America are not as civilized as Great Britain’s neighbors in Europe. Look at the homicide rates in Africa, Mexico, and South America on the map at Charts Bin, then tell me our problem is about gun control. http://chartsbin.com/view/1454

The CIA Fact Book provided the figures on the percentages of Non-White population. Before Socialists like Piers and Obama blame the U.S., they need to be honest about the relationship between diversity in America and out homicide rate. The Socialists wanted diversity; they got it; it backfired. Our problem is not guns, it is the Socialist’s own irrational game of diversity. The problem is that Socialists cannot face the fact they made a mistake, whether about gun control or about diversity. Take your pick about which is the problem, or is it both? The problem is that Socialists cannot face the fact
they made a mistake, whether about gun control or about diversity. Take your pick about which is the problem, or is it both? Socialists in the U.S. want control, but when they get control the homicide rate is a problem in comparison to mostly White European countries. If the Socialists were honest, they would be trying to ban diversity to control the homicide rate instead of banning guns. I’m just sorry Alex Jones is not
equipped with this information, and Piers does need to be deported back to his mostly White country – the one he understands. He certainly doesn’t get it about the one where he currently lives. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
- LLinLa
  
  Ann! Really now? “. . . they need to be honest . . .” Who needs to be honest? Obama? Morgan? Pelosi? Reid? Feinstein? The MSM? C’mon . . . you really believe you can get blood out of a turnip?
  
  Seriously, you make perfect sense. I just couldn’t get past the use of the word “honest” in the same sentence as Piers and Obama.
http://www.facebook.com/williame.ramer William E Ramer

The Red Coats came to confiscate the guns and met the patriots at Concord Bridge, 1776. Many of the Patriots carried rifles, the Red Coats carried smoothe bore muskets, and died after missing there targeted Patriot because of there inferrior arms. It is our duty as patriots to be better armed, and more accurate than any tyrant who would again try to take the tools of our self defence and freedom ever again.
gypsy314

Are we ready?
Chuck Lund

I still believe in the old saying….. Gun’s don’t Kill….. People do. Take away the Gun’s,…. People will still Kill People.

The Sandy Hook Massacre

The Sandy Hook Massacre: When Seconds Count, the Police are Minutes Away:

"Doug Giles and his team over at ClashDaily.com cut through the crap to expose what have become modern day human slaughter houses: gun free zones. Their candid arguments about allowing teachers to protect themselves and the students in their care through concealed carry should be taken seriously. As a result maybe, just maybe, we’ll be able to save some lives someday rather than call the cops to report the body count." - Katie Pavlich. News Editor,Townhall.com and NYT's Best-selling Author, Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Cover-Up

"There were many lessons to draw from the horrific Newtown, CT school shooting. Unfortunately, most of the media and political Left came up with the wrong ones. But not Doug Giles and his writers over at ClashDaily.com. In the wake of this horror, they offered a robust defense of American citizens' right to bear arms and common sense answers to societal violence. The Sandy Hook Massacre: When Seconds Count, the Police are Minutes Away is a great resource for those interested in this vital, Constitutional issue." - S.E. Cupp, MSNBC Host and The Blaze Contributor