How to Destroy Leftist Gun Arguments

March 30, 2018
Occupy Democrats Parody

The left attack the rights of citizens “to keep and bear arms” from all directions.  Most will argue that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean what it says while their comrades and sometimes they themselves will argue that the 2nd Amendment must be repealed!

To avoid getting swept into the muck of disingenuous circular arguments slung by the illiberal “liberals” taking aim at gun rights, one can apply a few very simple guidelines to offer efficient service to their education.  The strategy I’ve developed breaks down into three very simple steps which are summarized as follows:

  1. Eliminate their game of “interpreting” the hell out of the 2nd Amendment until it means the opposite.
  2. Demonstrate why a REPEAL would be REQUIRED for them to claim any legitimacy to their gun grabbing objectives.
  3. Prove once and for all that nobody should WANT to see it “interpreted” nor repealed.

STEP 1: NEUTRALIZE “INTERPRETING” BY ANOINTED “EXPERTS”

The left are Marxists that hate everything about the RIGHTS acknowledged and offered protection in our Constitution.  For countless decades they will perform as or solicit “experts” to treat clear and plain English language as if some mysterious sanskrit that requires academic scholars and lawyers in long robes to “interpret” who in turn dispense a “deeper meaning” to the lowly masses.

The greatest common ignorance about the contract between “We the People” and our government is a notion that it’s inaccessible to our own direct understanding.  They’ve accepted a lie that access to rights requires a chain of command that’s not too unlike believing only the Pope has God’s phone number.  Or that higher power can only hear a mass that’s offered in Latin.

There is a reason that the founders chose extremely plain, clear and terse English to address such a big right as acknowledged in the 2nd Amendment.  And that reason is accessibility to what leftists might count as the “lowly” common people.  It’s also the left’s reason that any exposure offered to grade school students of intended meaning is strictly limited and accompanied with sweeping platitudes about a “living breathing” Constitution to prepare them to submit to a lifetime of whimsical changes and wild interpretations.

Well here’s where we end that game.

“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 infringed.” 

The left will point you to the left edge of this short and sweet sentence and then promote wild misinterpretations of “well regulated” and “militia.”  From that they’ll imply that the extremely simple language that follows which, 1. acknowledges a preexisting right to “keep and bear arms.” and 2. prohibits government from “infringing” on said right, is attenuated, or fully reversed by their “superior” understandings that are better described as grossly inferior.

The good news is that, for those capable of comprehending rudimentary English and following some logic, it is clear that the preamble “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” is absolutely NOT a “conditional clause.”  Those who got C’s and D’s in English might channel any computer language training they might have received which reinforces the fundamental rules and importance of syntax.

IF x<y THEN x==x+1 (in English, until x is equal or greater to y add one to x)
WHILE x<y x==x+1 (another version of the same CONDITIONAL statement.)

If the 2nd Amendment WERE to be conditioned on some assessment or circumstance, it would have been written similarly with an "If, while, so long as…" or similar.

If it read "Since mass murder by government is bad, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," a subsequent realization that "mass murder by government" was "good" would NOT modify much less reverse the acknowledged RIGHT "to keep and bear Arms," nor the PROHIBITION against "infringement" of said right.

What if it read "So long as mass murder by government is bad…?"  Well now it's a different story since it becomes (drum roll…) a "Conditional Clause."  This means that if a bunch of Tide Pod eating imbeciles were to come of age believing "mass murder by government is good," then PROHIBITION against "infringement" can be considered up for grabs.  However, the acknowledged preexisting "RIGHT" to "keep and bear arms" is NOT contradicted nor modified.

Liberals defending their imagined rights to dispatch the violence of government goons with guns to collect weapons from law abiders will attempt to ignore the SIMPLE ENGLISH and LOGIC to keep the focus on their ignorant and subjective interpretations of "well regulated" and "militia."  So it's essential to stand your ground when correcting them.

As a matter of POLICY any arguments about "what is a militia" or "what is well regulated," should be summarily and consistently met with this response:

“Those unable to comprehend basic English and simple logic most certainly cannot be expected to grasp bigger concepts like ‘well regulated’ and ‘militia,’ so I’ll only indulge your naive notions on that AFTER you acknowledge that the preamble does NOT modify, much less reverse the acknowledged RIGHT to ‘keep and bear Arms,’ NOR the PROHIBITION against government infringement of said right.”

STEP 2: PROVE A REPEAL IS REQUIRED TO LIFT PROHIBITION AGAINST INFRINGEMENT

Once they’ve ceded to what we’ve established with simple rudimentary English and logic that all the wild interpretations of 2nd Amendment are moot, there’s only ONE thing to discuss.  And that can certainly include conversation about the preamble which is only the Founder’s statement of WHY the RIGHTS should NOT be infringed.

Screen Shot 2018-03-30 at 1.16.52 PM
Marxist Retired Justice Stevens may be a “disgrace to America” but to his credit, he just acknowledged that the 2nd Amendment does INDEED prohibit “infringement” of the RIGHT to “keep and bear Arms,”

Retired Marxist Justice Stevens as good as acknowledged that a REPEAL would be required to give the leftist he loves their way with government infringement of the acknowledged RIGHT to “keep and bear Arms.”

Be sure to remind the disciple of the gun grab cult you’re facing in debate of that fact.

 

STEP 3: PROVE WHY ABUSING OR REMOVING 2ND AMENDMENT IS A BAD IDEA

Leftists like to toss numbers out.  Mark Twain warned us about “Lies, damned lies and statistics,” but not all statistics are “lies” nor exploited to tell lies.  “Gun Deaths” and “Gun Violence” statistics are the finest examples of the kind Mark Twain warned us about.

By definition they place GUNS at the top of every LIST of “problems” while deflecting and distracting from the legitimate statistics that actually do matter.

“Gun Deaths” statistics also happen to include suicides, and removing that, we’re left with only 38% of the larger number foisted by #LIARSOFTHELEFT, since (as you may be able to deduce) 62% of “Gun Deaths” are suicide.

suicide gun laws hypocrisy messaging gun control
Apparently, per the left, suicides are only good if they aren’t performed with the efficiency of a firearm.

It’s harder to track crime and murder prevention by use of firearm for self defense, but we are able to make reasonable guesses:

FB_IMG_1495112752975 gun control statistics reality inconvenient truth
But any sensible analysis proves beyond doubt that the more private citizens have rights to own and point their weapons at criminals, the more net lives are saved as made extremely clear here:

I’ve deployed the above in several threads and NEVER had ANY of the information refuted, but I did witness the corresponding comment scrubbed by dishonest propagandists like RAWSTORY and others, and often that was accompanied by blocking!

But really NONE of that matters because they amount to “stats” and numbers that are dispassionate, not all that emotionally charged and might not resonate with the especially ignorant #ExploitedUsefulIdiotTeens being paraded as front men in the larger rehash of #WOMENSMARCH.

There is a number that IS emotional that needs to be repeated often.  Most indoctrinated tots that learned ANYTHING about history only hear about “the Holocaust” and 6 million Jews.  The gun control aspect of that story is challenged by a random Marxist Professor with flimsy arguments and spread by propagandists like Salon Magazine to mitigate or even reverse that lesson.  But compared to the larger history of mass murder by gun control, NAZI Germany amounts to a picnic.

FASCISM FOR BOYS COMMUNISM FOR MEN

Sound outrageous?  No it’s not, unless 6 million of a specific set of lives matter a whole lot more than the 194 million that make up the total of 200 million lives lost after being disarmed.  This is important since the left are less prepared to dismiss the much grander scale of mass murder by Communists as “not gun control” as they’ve been trained to on that narrow 3% of the bigger story.


So let’s use the same kind of clear and plain English to describe the greater concern that might resonate with those living only on emotions.  Ask them this!

“200 million were already sacrificed at the altar of your #GUNGRABBER religion, and countless MORE lives utterly destroyed. Many were teenagers, small children and tiny babies.  When will you agree that “enough is enough” of THAT?” 

©2018 Occupy Democrats Parody

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s