Shoot That Thing Safely!NewsGays & the 2nd AmendmentHome
 

Gays With Guns! August 1st, 2016

Opinion Editioral: About that "Let's Have a Conversation on Guns" --the Latest in the Liberal's Refrain.

Copyright 2016 © Bunny Keane (Transitioning M2F) / Gays With Guns llc | All Rights Reserved.

One of the things I hear liberals currently saying: “We want to start a conversation and a dialogue. No one seems to be able to agree on sensible gun control”.

My response: "Oh really?" Well, since 1934 we've been having that conversation and since 1934 gun owners have constantly conceded and given gun control advocates what they want. Since then we have seen nothing in return. Sometimes we’ve okayed and even gone along with these things and for the past 70 years, we have been told that this is what we need to ‘make people safe’ and yet then more new laws, loaded with more restrictions, gets pushed on us as ‘reasonable’ gun control. To the degree that all that remains of the 2nd Amendment now is in tatters, flapping in the storm!

I think most gun owners are open to having a dialogue, but you have to ask yourself, what are you willing to give us?

Until you can finally come up with laws that you’re willing to compromise on, gun owners won’t be giving up another thing --because history has shown, time and time again, compromise really hasn’t been the goal. Has it.

So how about national reciprocity in exchange for “universal” background checks? Would you trade a seven day waiting period and remove the law that prevents people from buying guns in other states, despite them being able to legally purchase that firearm in their home state?

Or how about, would you trade a safe handling demonstration and testing (similar to Firearm Safety Certificate ), for removing silencers from the NFA (National Fire Arms Act)? Or how about removing the heap of laws statistically proven, time eternal, to have no change whatsoever on gun violence?

Until you can come to us with something other than demands, we have nothing to talk about. I believe you (gun advocate group) do believe in sensible gun control and don’t want to take away guns from law abiding people, but the people who sponsor you have never once proposed a compromise, I.e.: The Brady Campaign, Mothers Against Gun Violence, etc.

It’s hard for us to believe you have the right intentions when the very people who sponsor you have made it abundantly clear that civilian disarmament is the goal.

I think responding with questions is always an effective way at ruining the Gun Grabber's argument. This approach is very similar to therapy; where the therapist asks questions they already know the answer to in order to force the patient to answer their own questions. Basically they're leading the client to the truth by asking a series of questions until the client ends up hearing the truth from their own mouth. This can often be more effective than risking resentment by telling them the truth straight out. A good example is when when the conversation focuses on "Assault" rifles:

Us: “What is it that makes an AR15 more lethal than a handgun in mass shootings?”

GunGrabbers: will often avoid answering with canned response: “It’s a weapon of war that has no place on our street”.

Us: "Really? What military uses the AR15 in war?" (None) Silence... followed by...

GunGrabbers: “AR15’s can kill mass amounts of people in a short period of time”.

Us: "Okay, so how are they functionally different handgun then? What makes AR15’s extra capable of killing lots of people? If we look at how an AR15 actually functions it's really the same as a pistol: Insert magaine, pull trigger. So what's the difference?

GunGrabbers: Silence.

Forcing GunGrabber's to explain why something is the way it is quickly kills their argument, flat dead in the water, because they don’t haven't even a basic understanding of how guns actually operate. Conversely, when we respond with 2nd amendment, militia, rights, etc they tune out. So we have to keep asking the GunGrabbers advocates questions in order to prove their point wrong. Their own logic will destroy them, because when you ask them these questions there’s no rational answer.

Another thing I’d like to point out is that none of these proposed laws would stop these horrible mass shootings. None. Nada. Zero, Zip. Not one!

Virtually every mass shooter passed a background checks or illegally stole their firearms. The laws you propose may very well help reduce some gun violence/death in inner cities where the overwhelming majority of criminals obtain their guns through straw purchasers or exploit the no background check for private sale ‘loophole’ (it’s not but we'll call it that for sake of argument).

As gun owners we see you using these tragedies to exploit gun control that doesn’t actually do anything to reduce mass shootings. If your goal is to lower the amounts of gun deaths per capita and help *all* gun violence victims, then we have something to talk about, but if your goal is to legislate away mass killers, the evidence is clear that more laws can’t stop these people.

This type of deceptive and underhanded manipulation, purposeful or not, makes us extremely apprehensive to any type of gun reform. The conversation we should all be having started out as lie, so there is no foundation of trust”. I could go on and on.

So the typical idea about “having a conversation” is pure baloney --like talking about it will do anything to change it.

Hollow, one-sided retoric with about as much value as an empty shell casing. It’s like the “dialogues” Obama has about inner city violence, yet he does nothing to help except dump money into a broken school system that only has kids for 8 of 24 hours.

Bunny Keane is a 2nd Amendment activist, currently transitioning M2F and lives in Southern California. Bunny works as the Assistant Organizer with the LGBT gun social / activist group.
Gays With Guns llc.

Gun Rights are Civil Rights!
Free Lessons *
From a Professional Marine Corps. Marksman!