Need some help guys and gals.
I am currently in a class “Social Problems.” Topic: Gun control. I seem to be surrounded by liberals. My college is the largest online university in the world, and talking with the professor I was able to get a thread going where we can post statistics about whether or not gun control works.
I need some help getting some sites together to dispel these ridiculous accusations flying around. Preferably, I want to contrast crime rates (DC versus Georgia, for instance). Anything at all to show proof crime rates are not dropping thanks to gun control.
Thanks in advance, ya’ll!
Google "gun facts" and "guy smith" and you'll get a plethora of info. For instance, the year after FL passed CCW their murder rate went from double the national average to several points below. That and many other interesting facts can be found. I think keepandbeararms.com would be the best place.
I'd love an opportunity to debate a bunch of f'ing liberals about gun control. Beware of typical liberal tactics like fabricating statistics (read: flat out lying) and just generally shouting you down when you start to make too much sense. Good luck.
I doubt you'll convince any liberals of the truth, but you might affect your grade depending on the teacher.
Don't play the game of offering statistics. It goes right along with the "if it saves just one life...isn't it worth it?"
Since stats can be manipulated, you'll lose. Always.
Play the moral/emotional card, just like they do.
Use the "Bill of Rights" argument...if they counter with "our founding fathers couldn't have imagined X type of gun"
-- they couldn't have imagined photocopiers, typewriters and the Internet, either. Should we require all journalists to submit to background checks (like they were doing in Chicago to access gov't buildings)? Lenin and a lot of others used propoganda to further their murderous causes...the pen is mightier than the sword, etc.
-- Police are not obligated to protect you. Thus, who is responsible for your safety if the cops are required to do anything? (South v. Maryland)
-- If they bring up the Militia argument, USC 10 describes who the militia is....us (unorganized militia). Besides, the founding fathers, if they'd wanted the ability to restrict it, could have easily written that ability into the language...look at Amendment 3, which talks about quartering troops:
If they'd wanted to add that language, they could have.
--"so, you're saying that it's better for a woman to be raped and left for dead in an alley than for her to be standing over the remains of her rapist?"
-- If they argue that the majority of Americans are for gun control, say "Well, 50 years ago, the majority of the country thought Black Americans should sit at the back of the bus, go to separate schools, and have segregated lunch counters."
-- Gun control is racist, since it never affects those with power and money, which means predominantly white folks like me. Gun laws were instituted to keep blacks, Italians, Irish and other immigrants from having guns. www.jpfo.org
-- Get Alan Korwin's "Supreme Court Gun Cases"...I have a few copies for sale. Talks about the long history of the SCOTUS affirming an individual's RKBA. Dred Scott, for example...in this case, the SCOTUS said that Scott, as a slave, was not a citizen and thus didn't not have the same rights as whites, which included the RKBA/2nd Amendment.
-- For some of the opinions from the US Supreme Court which mention the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right of citizens, see cases: Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), U.S. v. Cruikshank, Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992), Johnson v. Eisentrager, Poe v. Ullman, Konigsberg v. State Bar, Duncan v. Louisiana, Laird v. Tatum, Spencer v. Kemna (1998), Albright v. Oliver and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez.
Remember, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. You will ALWAYS lose the stats game against them.
Practical Tactical, LLC
Allowing them to get away with arguing that crime has increased or decreased allows them to say that if they can convince 50%+1 of a legislature to ban guns because of some perceived imbalance caused by gun ownership, then so be it.
That is what is known as the "Utilitarian Theory of Rights." It is socialist and offers no standard save the changing winds of short-term public opinion.
Repealing the 4th and 5th amendments would reduce crime too, since it would make it easier to convict criminals charged with crimes, but I'd doubt they'd support that.
More to the point... let's see what the Framers had in mind concerning the right to keep and bear arms.
First, the basics:
Tench Cox was a friend of Madison’s and wrote the following glowing report of the Second Amendment just after it was drafted:
Here is Cox, writting prior to the Constitutional Convention:
Richard Henry Lee is the guy who called for drafting the Declaration of Independence, which he later signed:
What did Noah Webster mean by the phrase, "whole body of the people?"
Even Alexander Hamilton got into the act:
Wow. What Radical Revolutionaries these dude were!!!
William W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125 (2d ed. 1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point. He is quoted by Stephen P. Halbrook in "That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Consitutional Right" as follows.
Thomas Cooley, who was born in 1820 wrote the leading law school text for the latter 19th century. It is called the “General Principles of Constitutional Law.” Here is an excerpt:
Back when this great country was founded, and through it's early years, there seemed to be no shortage of great leaders with great minds. Is it me, or does there seem to be a complete void of these type of men in modern history?