Welcome to AR10T.com, the world's first forum dedicated to AR-10™ rifles .  We invite you to JOIN our friendly firearms enthusiast forum.

× Please be mindful that there are many different views on the forums. The only thing we all agree on is the AR-10 is an awesome rifle!

Having a Discussion with Select board Tomorrow

  • Posts: 346
  • Thank you received: 51

Having a Discussion with Select board Tomorrow was created by VTIT

Need a little help here. I am standing in front of my select board and a good number of my fellow Vermonters tomorrow. I am not shy about speaking but hate to go in unarmed. I need some VALID arguments against: Voting for the town to instruct their federal and state legislatures to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, requirement of criminal background check of every gun sold in America, and making gun trafficking a federal crime.

I know there are a lot of knee jerk reaction and sentimental "pry them from my cold dead fingers" arguments. Some of these may be valid. But I need a well worded factual argument to go against these liberal pieces of :censored: . Oops sorry, see that's what I don't want to do.

Any help would be appreciated.
11 years 1 month ago #20705

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 1078
  • Thank you received: 188

Replied by LebbenB on topic Having a Discussion with Select board Tomorrow

Have you checked the NRA-ILA website? There's a wealth of statistical data there.

"Crazy always finds a way." Cite the machete attack in China - a nation with STRICT laws against private ownership of firearms - that took the lives of 40+ children. It's not the tool - it's the wielder. If the Sandy Hook killer didn't have access to firearms, he would have found another way to accomplish what he did.

Push for the town to demand their state and federal governments to allow access to folks' mental health records when calling in a background check versus limiting the Second Amendment.
RLTW
11 years 1 month ago #20708

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 3354
  • Thank you received: 547

Replied by Siscowet on topic Having a Discussion with Select board Tomorrow

You might do some research as to how many mass shootings have occurred in Vermont in the last 20 years, and then figure out what percentage of the population were involved in them. Then ask the Select Board if their "fear" of .001% of the population is going to cause them to needlessly restrict the rights of 100% of the population. Quite simply they will be succumbing to the Politics of Fear. Yeah it might happen, but are they going to outlaw going outside in a thunderstorm, because you have an even better chance of being killed by lightening than getting killed by an assault rifle in this country? Or outlaw golf clubs because they can attract lightening strikes? Once you start this curtailments of freedom, where does it end? Probably only one out of every two million modern sporting rifles have been used in mass shootings in this country. ( check for accuracy). Making them much less of a safety threat then many other modern conveniences, such as cars, tractors, Boats, etc.. You get the idea.
Last edit: 11 years 1 month ago by Siscowet.
11 years 1 month ago #20719

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 5847
  • Thank you received: 556

Replied by jtallen83 on topic Having a Discussion with Select board Tomorrow

I sent a PM with a gun control paper, lots of facts and numbers.
LIBERTY FIRST!
The following user(s) said Thank You: VTIT
11 years 1 month ago #20721

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 2510
  • Thank you received: 529

Replied by OleCowboy on topic Having a Discussion with Select board Tomorrow

Since its tomorrow you need to do some research.

The first thing you need to decide upon is YOUR approach. I posted a piece on here( www.ar10t.com/forums/political-discussio...s-it-s-about-control ) you might want to read, its well researched and the data came from the FBI or the CDC (you rarely use refs in Editorials due to space and word limitations, I am held to 650 words +/- 25)

There are lots of approaches one can take to argue. In my mind gun control has nothing to do with gun control, its about control. I see nothing on the table that will keep kids or anyone from being shot. 100% of the mass murders have occured in gun free zones and most have had bonafide crazies with a gun. Bottom line is the government is to blame for 100% of the mass murders, NOT the guys on this forum who own the NUMBER 1 gun on the list to be banned "AR 10".
11 years 1 month ago #20722

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 536
  • Thank you received: 85

Replied by Dabu on topic Having a Discussion with Select board Tomorrow

Here's some examples, copy and paste what you need. And put some emotion in it. Everyone likes a good show.









and for some persuasion;




And good luck.
The following user(s) said Thank You: VTIT
11 years 1 month ago #20727

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 5847
  • Thank you received: 556

Replied by jtallen83 on topic Having a Discussion with Select board Tomorrow

Here is a paper I wrote, it is a few years old now but then the main points have not changed. The citations are full of liberals shooting themselves in the foot, metaphorically anyway.

Gun Control and Reality
There are only a handful of issues in America today as polarizing as gun control, or at least that is what the media and the political elite would have us believe. There have been whole groups and industries created around this debate, each with legitimate arguments on their sides. Our founding fathers thought the issue was so important they dedicated the entire second amendment of the bill of rights to the issue. The wording of the amendment as ratified by the states,” 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” seems very clear with both purpose and reason. The best way for America to remain free from tyranny is to have a well-armed citizenry. Our founding fathers learned this with firsthand experience; if we take a look at their reasoning and the history of gun control since then it should be easy to realize we must accept some risk to avoid the greater evil.
There is no denying the risks involved in having general gun ownership among citizens. A study from the CDC showed a total of 31, 224 fire-arm related deaths in in the year 2007 alone. (Xu) Everyone can agree this is far too many lives lost. There were 43,900 deaths related to automobiles that same year according to the U.S Census Bureau yet you don’t hear anyone calling for a ban on cars. (US Census 84) We accept this collateral damage while government and the marketplace work to improve safety. No one denies that this approach is within the scope of the constitution and has been working with fewer and fewer deaths in automobiles as the year’s progress. Our approach to gun control should be much the same as automobiles. State and local governments regulate the activity in their jurisdiction but must honor other jurisdictions decision to allow your participation. Our founding fathers designed it that way for a reason.
When James Madison wrote The Federalist Papers he explained the reasoning behind the second amendment. To paraphrase, they understood necessary and fundamental right was needed if the federal government was to be given supremacy over the states. Without an armed citizenry the federal government would be more likely to turn tyrannical like the British. (Madison) Knowing that revolutionary forces relied heavily on personal arms to wage the war they thought this would give the states the power to resist any future tyranny. From an article on guns of the revolution we learn that nearly all the weapons used in the first part of the war were personal hunting rifles brought by the volunteers. It goes on to explain the disadvantages this caused and their need to move to more military oriented muskets. (Postscripts) This evidence shows us that the founding fathers didn’t just intended citizens to own guns but military style guns as well.
America’s recent return to allowing citizens to buy so called “assault rifles” brings us back in line with the intensions of our founding fathers. It also shows there is no direct correlation between the number and types of guns owned by the public and the number of firearm related deaths. In an article in the 2008 Wake Forrest law review we learn that the number of guns owned in America increases by roughly 5 million each year. (Johnson 837) The CDC study shows a relatively flat number of firearms deaths over the same periods. This would seem to confirm the old adage; Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. That does still leave us with the accidental deaths.
A study from North Dakota state university shows that training from a young age can drastically reduce accidental deaths and possibly reduce all assaults with firearms. The study showed when people become familiar with what guns can do at a young age there is evidence they will not misuse them in the future. ( Miltenberger 513) Just like we do with cars, we train those in need of training and ban those that don’t meet the standards. We don’t ban all cars because a small portion of us can’t drive safely.
Banning guns has been a popular answer to the problem throughout history. From a safety standpoint the Washington D.C. gun ban should be proof enough that banning does not work. Author Robert Endorff does a very credible job of condensing 30 years of studies on one of America’s oldest bans and clearly shows the citizens of Washington are not any safer. According to congressional records between the years 2000-2005 Washington D.C. was in the top three for murders per capita, three of those years coming in first. (Endorf) You can find statistics that show fewer accidents with guns where they are banned but you end up with only the bad guy being armed and even the most ardent safety advocates realize this can be a terrible situation leading to terrorized citizens. Madison explains in his Federalist Papers how the combination of an armed civilian population and a strong local government will prevent the tyranny many European countries deal with. (Madison)
There are many examples of this tranny that Madison spoke of in Europe but the best example we have to show that tyrants can rise in a democratic government came many years later, Hitler. An article in the Fordham law review places this example in the propaganda category saying that Hitler is not a true example of gun control gone wrong and the issue has been distorted by the pro-gun lobby. (Homsher) This author’s argument makes a good emotional appeal but with a close look you see she just ignores some facts. From an article by Bernard Harcourt we can follow the path Hitler took from gun registration, banning military style weapons (bolt action then), banning Jews from owning any weapons, to finally confiscating all weapons as well as eliminating most owners. Shortly after these laws were enforced the mass round up of Jews began. (Harcourt) If the Jews of Europe had been armed Hitler couldn’t have killed as many as he did. From the 1935 Berlin daily Hitler is quoted as saying” This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” (Harcourt) We all know it didn’t work out like that. Hitler is just one of many examples in history that show societies with armed citizens are safer overall. From Cambodia to Rwanda you have to ask if the death toll would have been as high had the victims lived under a constitution that allowed citizens to own guns.
For the safety of our nation we have to ignore the radicals on both ends of the issue and continue to make good rational decisions about what citizens should own what guns. Both sides have their extremes from the total ban of firearms to the call to make it mandatory to carry a gun these sub-issues only benefit the small groups backing them and serve to muddy the issue for the American people. We have to come to grips with the fact that we need an armed citizenry and start doing the training necessary to save lives. With technology and training guns can be safe. As long as we stick to our founding documents while navigating new laws and technology our nation’s security is insured. Stray from this path and the chance that our nation suffers genocide someday is greatly increased.
 
Works Cited
Endorf, Robert. "The District of Columbia Gun Ban: Where the seductive Promise of Gun-Control meets reality." Journal on Firearms and Public policy vol 19 (2008): 51-100. print.
Harcourt, Bernard. "Hitler and Gun Regestration." Fordham Law review (2004): 653-680. print.
Homsher, Deborah. "A Response to Bernard Harcourts on Gun Regestration." Fordham Law review (2004): 715-719. print.
Johnson, Noel. "IMAGINING GUN CONTROL IN AMERICA:." Wake Forrest Law Review (2008): 837-891. pdf.
Madison, James. The Federalist No 46 The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared. Open letter to the people of New York. New York, 1788. print.
NA. "Guns of the American reveloution; Setting the Record Straight." 24 11 2006. Postscripts. web page. 21 11 2011.
Raymond Miltenberger, Christopher Flessener, Brian Gathridge, Bridgette Johnson, Melisa Satterland, and Kristin Egemo. "Evaluation of behavioral Skills Training to Prevent gun play in children." NDSU Journal of Applied behavior Analysis (2004): 513-516. print.
"Statistical abstract US Census bereau." statistcal abstract. 2012. pdf.
Xu, Jiaquan and Sherry L. Murphy, Betzaida Tejada-Vera Kenneth D. Kochanek. "Deaths: Final Data for 2007." National Vital Statistics Reports . 2010. pdf.
LIBERTY FIRST!
The following user(s) said Thank You: VTIT, Siscowet
11 years 1 month ago #20729

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 346
  • Thank you received: 51

Replied by VTIT on topic Having a Discussion with Select board Tomorrow

Thanks to everyone for helping out on this. I had my say and so did quite a few other people. It seems it was about 8-10 to 1 against any kind of gun ban. The Select Board will vote on it and decide whether to send a letter to state and federal representative asking them to support an "assault weapon" ban and "large capacity" magazines.

More than one speaker stated that they would be watching the vote to see if they support this ban and would campaign against any that supported it.

It got pretty vocal a few times and had to be hushed. The gun nazis were definitely out numbered.
11 years 1 month ago #20973

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 2510
  • Thank you received: 529

Replied by OleCowboy on topic Having a Discussion with Select board Tomorrow

My question to you then, is what approach did you take, what premise did you use to build your argument on as there are so many approaches. What I generally see is scatter shooting, throwing out so many things in hoping to hit the target. WHich is why I like to use the FBI data (ALWAYS try to use gov data to support your case, really knocks the props out from under the govt).
11 years 1 month ago #20975

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 346
  • Thank you received: 51

Replied by VTIT on topic Having a Discussion with Select board Tomorrow

I used FBI data and a couple other sources. I mentioned that most gun crimes are hand gun related and banning long guns would not help that problem one bit. I also mentioned that schools are a prime target because anybody knows there are no guns there. I have statistics on the people who committed mass murders in the last 20 years and mental profiles for all of them (provided by local law enforcement I might add). All the information I had was backed up with documentation and sources. I had handouts of all the factual information for all members of the select board.

I was actually up with two other guys, one is a member of a select board in a nearby town and one is a county sheriff of 18 years. We all got together that morning and one night last week to go over strategy and who was going to say what. I have known the sheriff since before I was born (our moms are best friends). He knows the select board member from the other town well.

The sheriff went over VT statistics and showed how violent crime has gone down since the ban ended. He also had some anecdotal information about who was committing those crimes. He also had stats on how many times people defended themselves with a gun, although he also mentioned that many people won't say they used a gun to defend themselves because they fear legal repercussions so the numbers are probably low.

The other select board member has gone through this same issue in his town and told how that meeting went. They actually had to call another meeting to go over this one issue because it was such a hot item. They also had to change the venue because there were so many pro-gun people they wouldn't fit in the normal chambers. Pro-gun support was so strong that they did not send a letter.
11 years 1 month ago #20978

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Show 'em Off!

Add your rifle to the AR-10 Photo Thread!