These are so common they should be an FAQ.

"Nobody wants to take away your guns."

How you lie to yourselves:

This huge list of people want to take away our guns.  You can't claim it's only rhetoric. You can't claim it doesn't matter.  You can't claim it's a fabrication or "out of context."  They have stated so, repeatedly, in public.  Anyone repeating "no one wants to take away your guns" is deluding themselves into a false moral high ground.

If you are one of these people, knowing this, you have a couple of choices:  Contact all the above people and express your objections, or admit that you're okay with people taking away our guns.  In which case, you're lying to us, too.


"No right is absolute.  Nobody would claim the Second Amendment protects a right to own a nuclear bomb."

How you lie to us:

You aren't interested in nukes.  However, your next statement is going to be, "So of course we can reasonably draw the line at 'assault weapons'."  At which point you're conflating a common, self-loading rifle, which has been in existence for over a century, and fires bullets at people, with a nuclear device capable of destroying cities.  Sure, 1763 Joules is almost the same as  5,439,200,000,000,000,000 ( 5.4392X10^18 ) Joules.

No, not really.

If you are one of these people, you're lying.  We know you're lying.  You also have a ridiculous obsession with guns, if you can even pretend to compare them to nukes. (FYI, there's absolutely a valid claim that the Second Amendment protects the right to own nuclear bombs.)


"High capacity clips."

 By this, you mean any MAGAZINE, not clip, that holds "a lot."  You're counting on your toes and running out.

How you're lying to us:  

In fact, the AR15 and the military M16 started with 20 round magazines in 1959.  They moved to a 30 round magazine in 1967.  The AK-47 was first fielded in ...1947.  It has had a 30 round magazine as its standard all along.  That's 66 years.  So what makes it "high capacity" now?  That someone not in this field of expertise doesn't like it doesn't change the definitions.  You can't arrogate that authority to yourself.

You can't even decide what constitutes "high capacity."  It varies by jurisdiction from 30 to 20 to 15 to 12 to 10 to 7.

Based on what criteria?  And, if you get to define it as 10, then 7, as has happened, why not 5 (standard capacity in 1893)?  4 (standard in 1859)?  1 (standard back to the 1500s)?

This is very clearly an attempt to ban guns (oh, right--you don't actually want to ban guns. See above).  It's just a dishonest attempt.  But go ahead, tell me why X rounds is "enough," and what task it's enough for, and your credentials for making that statement.  You can't answer those questions, because you're lying.

What you mean is, "I want to find ways to make it tough for people to own guns."

And of course, the people it will be toughest for are poor, usually minorities. So you're hugely racist as well. It won't be rich, white, liberals of privilege in their gated communities and condos who can't get guns. It will be poor single mothers and families in the ghetto, who can't afford a license, a safe, excessively expensive "training," and sign-off by bureaucrats. Just the way you liked them in the post-bellum south.


"At the time the Constititution was written, people only had muskets."

Why you're lying:

Actually, no.  There were repeating firearms even then.  But that's irrelevant.  In 1789, gays couldn't marry. Are you pushing for that?  "Free speech" meant wood type or standing in the city square.  What about that?  Things develop and improve over time.  Why don't you try being liberal, and embrace the 21st Century, rather than being stuck in 1789?

Wait, I know your response:  "Those don't kill people."

Why you're STILL lying:

Pedophiles make copious use of the internet to share files that exploit, hurt, and kill kids.  Please justify why you need internet in your home?  What's wrong with reasonable regulation?  Background checks?  Why can't you access the internet from a library, where your browser history can be monitored?

You're lying.  Stop wasting your time.

BTW, gay marriage aside, AIDS spread by gay men kills as many people as guns.  Are you pushing for mandatory blood tests and condom usage to save lives?

If not, you're lying. It's not about saving life.  It's about you having an irrational fear of guns.


"I have guns, and all mine are properly registered."

How you're lying:

Almost no state or local jurisdiction in the US actually registers firearms.  So unless you happen to live in one of those, you're either fabricating entirely to try to don the cloak of credibility, or, you don't actually know anything about the law.  So perhaps you shouldn't be expressing an opinion on a subject you don't understand.  Either way, lies and ignorance are poor tactics for debate.


"We are advocates for safe gun use."

How you're lying:

Would you care what a "car safety advocate" said if he wasn't a car designer, engineer, builder, or even had a driver's license?  Guess what?  Since you know nothing technically about the subject, you're not an advocate for safety, you're an advocate for fear and ignorance.   There's no reason we should listen to you.


"Guns are only made to do one thing:  Kill people."

 Why you're wrong:

A lot of Olympic target shooters will be surprised to hear that.  So will hunters.  So will 90,000,000 Americans who didn't kill anyone last year.  Statistically, guns are significantly less lethal than a great many other devices.


"We just want to save children's lives."

Why you're lying:

If it was about children's lives, booze and incidents involving booze kill more people than in incidents involving guns, A LOT more children than are killed in incidents involving guns, and there are zero non-medical reasons a person "needs" booze.  How many of you voice anything about further restrictions on booze?  You're quite likely part of the "booze culture" yourself.  So you have no credibility.

What you are refusing to admit is that the only purpose of alcohol is to hinder and impair your judgment and motor skills.  But you didn't INTEND to run anyone down, so negligence is okay.

No, it's not.

But try this to prove your position:  Go to the morgue, find the body of a child hit by a drunk, and tell the parents, "Be glad they weren't shot. That would be worse."

Really.  Do it.

If you won't, you know your position is dishonest.  So what it comes down to is, "My vices are okay, but yours aren't, and I'm willing to lie to get what I want."

You're not interested in saving children's lives. In fact, you'll gleefully dance on their graves if you think you'll gain political leverage, while you continue with acts that kill a lot more kids.

Oh, and there's a stated constitutional right to my "vice" and SCOTUS agrees.  So you're in the same "protect the children" crowd as the Klan protecting kids from blacks, the anti-gay crowd protecting kids from gays, and the anti-porn crusaders.

And that's exactly how we see you--a bunch of dishonest, loudmouthed, hypocritical bigots.  

Truth hurts, eh?