Fight Fire With Fire

[rgkitchen]

Beginning now, whenever anyone mentions that we have to ban some types of guns, I am going to counter propose that we ban some kinds of speech. Whenever anyone says that we don't need AR-15s or AK-47s, I will counter that we don't need network news since newspapers were good enough for hundreds of years; they're all we need now.

It's beyond time to go on the offensive. Politicians who support the 2nd Amendment should just quit talking about the 2nd Amendment and begin using the 1st Amendment as a comparison. For each usurpation of our 2nd Amendment rights, a counter with an equally inappropriate usurpation of our 1st Amendment rights should be forwarded. If they propose a ban, restriction, or tax on “so called” assault weapons, it should be countered with a ban, restriction, or tax on all media (movies, TV, video games) that features the exact same “assault weapon”.

We do not need to defend the 2nd Amendment, but if they’re going to propose to abolish it via legislation or executive fiat, then the 1st Amendment is equally at risk, and should be equally attacked. If they escalate their attacks on the 2nd Ammendment, then we should also escalate our attacks on the 1st Amendment. Maybe Communism and Socialism should be made illegal, eh?

This contrast will go to clarify that these enumerated Constitutional rights are all equal. You cannot take some away without risking others as well. If you can restrict the 2nd Amendment because you don’t like certain kinds of guns, then you can also restrict the 1st Amendment because you don’t like certain kinds of speech or religion.

Whenever a politician counters that the 1st Amendment is "sacred", we must counter that the 2nd Amendment is just as "sacred". All arguments should end right there.

[ReconLdr]

Beginning now, whenever anyone mentions that we have to ban some types of guns, I am going to counter propose that we ban some kinds of speech. Whenever anyone says that we don't need AR-15s or AK-47s, I will counter that we don't need network news since newspapers were good enough for hundreds of years; they're all we need now.

It's beyond time to go on the offensive. Politicians who support the 2nd Amendment should just quit talking about the 2nd Amendment and begin using the 1st Amendment as a comparison. For each usurpation of our 2nd Amendment rights, a counter with an equally inappropriate usurpation of our 1st Amendment rights should be forwarded. If they propose a ban, restriction, or tax on “so called” assault weapons, it should be countered with a ban, restriction, or tax on all media (movies, TV, video games) that features the exact same “assault weapon”.

We do not need to defend the 2nd Amendment, but if they’re going to propose to abolish it via legislation or executive fiat, then the 1st Amendment is equally at risk, and should be equally attacked. If they escalate their attacks on the 2nd Ammendment, then we should also escalate our attacks on the 1st Amendment. Maybe Communism and Socialism should be made illegal, eh?

This contrast will go to clarify that these enumerated Constitutional rights are all equal. You cannot take some away without risking others as well. If you can restrict the 2nd Amendment because you don’t like certain kinds of guns, then you can also restrict the 1st Amendment because you don’t like certain kinds of speech or religion.

Whenever a politician counters that the 1st Amendment is "sacred", we must counter that the 2nd Amendment is just as "sacred". All arguments should end right there.

I've made similar comments on Facebook but with a focus on Religion rather than Speech.

A friends very "anti" wife posted about how "Assault Weapons" were not part of the Constitution (she knows what she's talking about because she's a History teacher, just ask her) and the gubment should just add a line to the next election ballot "Should the US ban Assault Rifles?" and settle this once and for all.

A lengthy discussion between me and 6 or 7 of her other "learned" friends where they tried to prove her argument as possible under current law and the Constitution. I replied:

I'll concede your argument if you also agree that the gubment could also establish a "National Religion" based on the same type of ballot. To which, they ALL replied NO in various forms.... When I asked "Why is it that you "scholars" think the gubment can limit the 2A but not the 1A? She "Unfriended" me before I see their responses....

[harty]

I've made similar comments on Facebook but with a focus on Religion rather than Speech.

A friends very "anti" wife posted about how "Assault Weapons" were not part of the Constitution (she knows what she's talking about because she's a History teacher, just ask her) and the gubment should just add a line to the next election ballot "Should the US ban Assault Rifles?" and settle this once and for all.

A lengthy discussion between me and 6 or 7 of her other "learned" friends where they tried to prove her argument as possible under current law and the Constitution. I replied:

I'll concede your argument if you also agree that the gubment could also establish a "National Religion" based on the same type of ballot. To which, they ALL replied NO in various forms.... When I asked "Why is it that you "scholars" think the gubment can limit the 2A but not the 1A? She "Unfriended" me before I see their responses....

With friends like that who needs enemies I am sorry I couldnt resist

[bustedmp]

Why do we need such scary evil looking guns? Why do we need mags that hold more than 5 or 10 rounds? Why do we need to buy 73,000 rounds of ammunition? Why do we need cars that can go faster than the speed limit? Why do we need air nailers when a hammer works just fine? Why does beer need to be sold in quanities that can render a person drunk? Why do we need to order a 7300 calorie meal from Burger King? Why do we need cell phones? Why do we need to light our houses up like the Griswolds for the holidays? We don't need those things, but the chance to make those choices are what makes this country great. I suppose we don't need 1700 HD channels on TV either?

[LBaker]

I say we levy a 100% tax on all movies that portray gratutious violence? Maybe that would make the Hollywood elitist STFU...

[photoshooter]

All of the people who want to ban AR-15s and AK-47s obviously have never fired an AR-15 or AK-47.

[c45man]

All of the people who want to ban AR-15s and AK-47s obviously have never fired an AR-15 or AK-47.

And they really have no interest in firing them. People who want to ban one type of rifle, or any firearm, will have no problem banning all of them. Their agenda has nothing to do with assault rifles, criminals, or even children. At the end of the day, the antis want and unarmed society to rely solely on the government for their protection.

[photoshooter]

So sad and absurd isn't it?
They want to ban guns so they can feel more safe.
It's always been amazing to me that people honestly believe this is the answer.
Or at least this is what the govt told them is the answer.

[pennlineman]

I'd like to see them flooded with pro gun legislation at both the state and federal level.