While we are busy talking about how lame Joe is, lets put the shoe on the other foot and see if he actually had any talking points that could make sense to a LibTard anti-gun nut (OK, how about to a person who isn't a dedicated gun owner).
Yes he is a public speaking nightmare, but he said two things that we should focus on in my opinion. What sport shooting requires the use of high capacity magazines? And his, "it takes time to change a magazine, if we can save one more life by it taking the shooter time to change the magazine" arguement. As much as the right hates Joe and as easy as it is to take shots at him for being an idiot, can you mount a viable defense agaisnt these two points? And don't say, I don't have to because our constitution protects my right to do so. That is what they are trying to change and without valid counter points how can we win?
His shotgun for home defense argument is easy to overcome so I'm not going to ask about that one. We all know that while a shotgun can clear a croud and is a great deterent, it lacks the accuracy to discriminate between targets and could even harm those we are trying to protect as colateral damage when the threat is ingaged.
This is where we lose the fight in my opinion. We want to take the easy route and point out how stupid Joe is, while the potentiallly valid points that he did make go unanswered. Just like most of the Right locked in on his assinign remarks, most of the left locked in on the points they can defend. If we are not attacking his potentially valid points, then his weak rebutals to our points will stand and they will prevail. I've yet to hear even one mention of why his rebutals were wrong except in the interview. All the personal attacks in the world won't change the few points he did make. That is where the focus should be if we don't want to lose what rights we still have.
that leaves me to believe he is an idiot. He shot himself in the foot but doesn't believe it is his fault."It is true the vast majority of deaths in America are not a consequence of the use of a assault weapon"
IDIOT! :no:I wish I had your hair!
Who's going to do a planned mass killing and show up with 10 round clips? What are you going to do, make being handy illegal when people start making their own box with a spring, floor-plate and follower? What are you going to do about the ones out there already? People breaking laws don't follow laws. It's like a bullet button or fixed magazine with tool requirement. Anyone planning isn't going to follow it!"it takes time to change a magazine, if we can save one more life by it taking the shooter time to change the magazine" arguement. As much as the right hates Joe and as easy as it is to take shots at him for being an idiot, can you mount a viable defense agaisnt these two points?
And your point is? You start of making Joe's case for him. Per your post, if they have to use 10 round clips they won't do it, so unless they are handy, as you put it, or able to procure illegal magazines, the proposed 10 round limit would stop some from commiting these crimes. Personally I think that is a bunch of Bull. It never stopped anyone in the past.Who's going to do a planned mass killing and show up with 10 round clips? What are you going to do, make being handy illegal when people start making their own box with a spring, floor-plate and follower? What are you going to do about the ones out there already? People breaking laws don't follow laws. It's like a bullet button or fixed magazine with tool requirement. Anyone planning isn't going to follow it!
And why does the government get to tell me at what capacity I can defend myself? What if 4 guys break into my house? They've had many 4 team burglaries in my area in the past. 10 rounds, for 4 guys if they were trying to KILL me is not enough in a 1v4 environment.
Edit, I forgot I can call the police, IF i can get to a phone, and they can show up 10 minutes later after they've already sodomized my dead body, took my shit and left.
According to a recent article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Atlanta police were the slowest to answer high-priority emergency calls among police departments from seven similar-sized cities. The results were part of a survey of police response times. In Atlanta last year it took, on average, 11 minutes and 12 seconds from the time a high-priority 911 call was received until an Atlanta police officer showed up at the scene. The response times reported by the El Paso (Texas) Police Department were only one second quicker than Atlanta’s, with an average of 11 minutes and 11 seconds.
The Denver Police Department posted a response time of 11 minutes flat. According to the Journal Constitution story, police in Tucson, Ariz., responded, on average, in 10 minutes and 11 second
Police in Kansas City, Mo., and Oklahoma City posted average response times of less than 10 minutes. In Nashville-Davidson County, police recorded average response times below 9 minutes.
Response times- city to city
Only if you twist what I wrote and that's what the side will twist all day long. You can twist any point, it's whether or not you let them get away with it.And your point is? You start of making Joe's case for him. Per your post, if they have to use 10 round clips they won't do it, so unless they are handy, as you put it, or able to procure illegal magazines, the proposed 10 round limit would stop some from commiting these crimes. Personally I think that is a bunch of Bull. It never stopped anyone in the past.
This proves my point. If we can't properly debate his points, which should be fairly easy for anyone that thinks about them, we will wind up losing this fight just like we lost the election. The F them attitude will wind up with us being the ones getting screwed. The multiple invader response to his point is good, as is the define sport shooting. We need to overcome his BS with hard facts and logical responses, not emotional outbursts.
The main reason to allow them to frame the debate is because it is an easy one to win. The fact that the party that tries to win public support by appearing to be the polite and concerned party open to reasonable discussion, usually wins unless you prove they are not what they claim to be, is normally the reason you would leave it in the frame work they set, but lets go for the easy win.Why are you allowing him, or whoever to frame the debate in recreational terms? Show me where in the 2nd amendment it say we have the right to bear arms solely for the purpose of sport? We need to take the fight to Slow Joe and the rest of the liberals trying to continually infringe upon my rights. Why do they get to define how many bullets I'm allowed to keep in my magazine? This is how conservatives always lose these debates, we let them dictate the outline and the rules. We need to start being the aggressor. Just like in sports, if all your focus is on defense, you'll lose a whole lot more than you win.
Maybe we are under estimating peoples intelligence a bit. I have talked to a number of people who don't want any part of guns, but are tired of losing more rights. We conservatives can have a multi point argument containing logic, reason, and a constitutional basis, but me personally, I want to see our representatives become aggressive and passionate about defending all our liberties. We can't afford to lose anymore.The main reason to allow them to frame the debate is because it is an easy one to win. The fact that the party that tries to win public support by appearing to be the polite and concerned party open to reasonable discussion, usually wins unless you prove they are not what they claim to be, is normally the reason you would leave it in the frame work they set, but lets go for the easy win.
Sorry snoc, there are no easy wins for the Repubs. They have been tossed more grapefruits the last 5 years and have pretty much wiffed with remarkable regularity. I think the gun control fight is right up our alley because it does cross party lines. Obama's message always preaches to the lowest common denominator, and yet the Republicans always want to be polite and civil in debating. Problem is, since the MSM won't carry their message, they're usually preaching to their own choir. This could be a way to help re-unify the party on a single issue.
The question should be: well if that is what you are after, if I show you the reason why these things you are looking to ban are effective self defense weapons and sporting weapons then you'll drop your pursuit of banning them? Of course he can't agree, which helps point out to the undecideds that yes this is a ploy for a gun grab, pure and simple.
I do agree that this should be part of the argument.
The right that owns guns know what it is about. The left that wants to take guns know what it is about. It is the middle that needs to know what is really going on, if we want to stop them from doing this stupid crap over and over again. When he says we don't want to infringe on constitutional rights (yes I know he lieing), but there is no reasonable need for these evil things they want to ban, he is trying to paint the left as good guys and the right as the evil gun mongers whom all the people in the middle should be afraid of. Changing the subject doesn't change that mental image he just painted. Going back in context and showing them for what they really are, does.
This is how a Democrat frames any argument they engage in. Again, I say we need to take the fight to them, not sit back and politely try to reason with them. You will never win a debate with a liberal unless you can demolish there reasoning with truth and logic.
We've already seen several plausable reasons to have the things he said there is no need for. There are many more that could be listed. So why change the subject and go back with the old "because it's a constitutional right" fight that they have been walking all over? If we address their comments in kind with reasonable points then the last mental image is that they haven't thought it all the way through. We win. After we win the point at hand, we can then make counter points by asking them, "Where does the constitution say that right is limited to owning strictly sporting weapons anyway?" Again, painting the mental image that they don't even know what they are talking about in the first place.
Again, I agree this must be a part of the argument that we take too them!
I agree with a lot of what has been said. And yes to a certain degree we need them to protect ourselves from our own government. At what point it will become necisary to go down that road is anyone's guess; if we ever need to actually walk that walk. I recently wrote my state represenative and suggested a bill that would automaticly authorize the governor to use the National Guard to remove any armed force that comes into the state without prior approval from the state legislature. The state has the responsibility to protect it's citizens from any attack or unconstitutional search and siezure. The National Guard is directly under the control of the Governor and as such can execute police actions and arrest any armed agents failing to abide by this law. One thing it would do is stop the IRS bully raids without prior consent from the state. No more Holden witch hunts.Snoc,I had typed out a solid (IMO) reply but lost it by the time I hit submit(the first day of this thread)...
I agree with most of what has already been said by Icecreaman and Gn7...
The most important reasons to keep our high cap. mags are for self defense of our family,homes and all property...Home invasion on up to our country being invaded substantiates our need for high capacity mags...