Alright, if you haven’t seen this video:
If you can’t stomach the full viewing, it’s the story of progressive do-gooders setting up a fake gun shop in order to tell unsuspecting gun-buyers the history of a gun and thus show how evil and repulsive it is to own one of these steel loved-one killers.
Destroy the Propaganda
Except there are a few problems. If your low-information voter friend is posting this on Facebook, please provide the following:
- That statistic of people who die after buying guns includes SUICIDES. Yes, that’s right. Those who buy and responsibly use guns have a VERY LOW “accident” rate.
- This video stunt – ALL aspects of it – are fabricated. The stories, the guns, AND THE CUSTOMERS. They’re all paid actors. It’s not an expose; it’s a propaganda piece.
- The message of this video is superstition. The gun itself does NOT kill anyone. It has no soul. It’s not a sentient being with a will to kill. If that were true, we’d want to buy guns from police because cop guns only shoot bad guys. See how stupid this all sounds now?
- Finally, a gun’s function is NOT to destroy and maim unsuspecting innocent people. It’s to change the equation between an aggressive, murderous attacker and a weak victim.
If you believe that women should be raped and murdered, ban guns. If you believe criminals should rob with impunity, ban guns.
Remember, the police are ALWAYS minutes away when seconds count. A smart, armed criminal with a cellphone jammer can block your too late 911 call and do what he wants with you in his safety in your house.
But if you believe you have a RIGHT to defend yourself against such things, tell your friend to not only SHUT UP about gun control, tell him or her to find out what that means: get trained to shoot. They may not still decide to buy a gun for their home, but at least they won’t keep posting this progressive propaganda that treats free citizens like moronic children.
Round Two – Be Reasonable
But they may return and say, “We’re just trying to be reasonable, to have a civil discussion on an important topic. Can’t we lay down the name-calling and political divisions and agree we should have SOME common sense restrictions or unchecks? Can’t we have some laws to keep guns out of the hands of maniacs?”
This argument divides into two important parts:
- Can’t we assume that arguing with my bad idea is destroying civil society?
- We have two choices: complete confiscation or rabid lawlessness where we’re distributing “Assault Rifles” to minors at the ice cream shop.
To the first part, NO. We will not agree that the Second Amendment is flawed, outdated and dangerous. No, we won’t “agree to disagree.” You’re wrong. And to be clear: stupid progressive policies and political correctness are destroying the civil society.
This is no longer a discussion, civil or otherwise, but a movement to restrict the rights of citizens by demonizing guns, American values and so forth.
To the second part: you have established a false dichotomy. NO ONE is advocating NO laws. Sorry for the double negative. In other words, we ALL agree on some laws, some restrictions, some checks. And some intelligence.
Guess what? We already have laws, restrictions and checks. Those are not on the table with this video and it’s not on the table the moment after another mass shooting occurs.
A reasonable discussion is not what progressives want. The video and its promoters are not advocating responsibility but submission. It doesn’t matter that EVERY mass shooter was a mentally unstable progressive socialist who voted for Obama and wanted a more restrictive government. It doesn’t matter that most of these attacks happened in gun-free zones. And it doesn’t matter that these confiscation policies utterly fail (Chicago, Detroit). What matters is what they want: no guns for citizens.
With every attack, the media first accuses tea party conservatives and demands gun restrictions. The agenda is all that matters, and it’s that transparent.
The harder argument is about the culture of death and lawlessness the progressives promote. Good luck with that.
I’d rather have a society without lawlessness but it’s not reality. As an alternative, I’ll take a society of law-abiding gun owners. The way things are going, we’re going to need more of them.
Turn the argument around
At the next stage, your low-information voting friend will say you’re a lost cause. You drank the Kool-aid and you’re beyond reach. My recommendation, since the friendship may well be over, is to use a simple progressive argument back.
Remember, when you say abortion is murder (and it is), they spaz that you want to take away women’s rights, that you want to be “up in women’s vaginas,” that you hate women and you want pregnant women to die in back-allies with wire hangers (we’ll settle the war on women separately).
So for turnabout, when progressives say guns are evil, tell them they want women raped and robbed and murdered with impunity, that they want criminals to murder families, kidnap and sell children into slavery and that they want minorities to slaughter each other in inner-city projects. How else can they justify listing the names and addresses of gun owners around the NYC area? These progressives must have wanted all those psychotic ex-boyfriends to brush past their restraining orders, find their scared exes, and bring closure to that relationship.
Finish with that Mika Brzezinski-style “That’s disgusting. I’m so offended. You should be ashamed. You shouldn’t even have a job. I don’t have to talk to bigots like you.”