The New Gun Control Talking Point

Can we all stop using the term “Gun Control” and start using the term Civilian Disarmament?

I think it better encompasses what the ultimate end-goal is for these gun-grabbers is. I also think its a spot-on way to show how meaningless their proposed laws and regulations always are… They in no way, shape, or form can control the access criminals have to firearms. All they are ever really doing is inching ever so closer to fully disarming law abiding citizens.

10 Responses to The New Gun Control Talking Point

  1. An author named L. Neil Smith coined the term “Victim Disarmament Zones” as oppsed to the term “Gun Free Zone”.

  2. I think we should simply start saying “disarmament”

  3. I really like it! send it to the folks at the NRA.

  4. Richard Ellis

    Count me in.

  5. The best way to win an argument is to apply an opposite meaning to the basis of the argument.

    When the first 12 amendments were set out to the states for ratification the process was proceeded with a resolution of congress signed by John Adams and Augustus Muhlenberg. The resolution explained the congresses reasoning for the first 12 amendments. This was their reasoning:

    “THE Conventions of the number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added …

    The second amendment is declaratory and restrictive to the United States of America and the States and municipalities of rights that were in full force at the time of the developing the Constitution and had existed for thousands of years before. What it implies is: “We the people have now, and for every have had the right to bear arms. We the people make the following declaration and restriction on the political powers:

    … the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    The second amendment does not grant to the people the right to bear arms; it restricts the government for infringing on that pre-existing right.

    The left in this country would have you believe that they and they alone granted you the right to keep and bear arms and that, that grant came to you via the Constitution.

    If a right is fundamental it pre-existed the constitution. The left has no authority, nor does the government have authority to infringe on that right.

    To understand this, is to understand why the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Illinois.

  6. My favorite term is “Designated Victim Enclosures”

  7. Pingback: White House Does Damage Control on NYT Gun-Control Report - Page 2

  8. I concur….what part of “shall Not Be Infringed” don’t they understand