*Authors Note: The following steps will only work if your subject has the capacity for rational thought. When speaking to a liberal progressive, using logic, facts, and reason to support your position will not have any effect. Liberalism is a mental disease and progressives further their agenda through lies. An attempt argue logic and facts with a liberal is akin to teaching a pig to ride a bike. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.1
Smashing the Gun Control (human control) argument is so easy that even a Columbia journalism major could do it, if they some how possessed the courage to try. What follows is a simple three step process to addressing the argument for civilian disarmament. All so-called “gun control” regulations exempt the government, or more aptly, employees of the state.
Gun control laws also by definition exempt criminals and those with criminal intent. A criminal is a person prone to or engaged in “unlawful activity”. Therefore, Malum Prohibitum laws concerning firearms will not prevent a criminal from possessing or using a gun in the commission of a crime. A violation of an existing Malum Prohibitum statute is merely an additional charge to add to the charges of Murder, Attempted Murder, Aggravated Assault, etc.
Considering the previous facts, supposed gun control laws have only one true legitimate target; the civilian. Only law-abiding citizens are genuinely effected by further restrictions. Ergo, gun control is tantamount civilian or citizen disarmament, it cannot and does not affect anyone else.
Ask you subject whether or not a man or a woman (any human being) has a legitimate right to self-defense. Does a person posses the legal right to defend themselves against unlawful attack? If the person you are speaking to hesitates and says anything but “yes”, your conversation is over. Should the subject say “yes, but…” then they do not believe it. They are a slave to the state and cannot be saved. You are finished with them, move on with your life.
“A man who cannot be persuaded to take up arms, even in the defense of that which he holds most dear, even for the protection of his own life, is the most selfish and vile of all creatures. That creature is no man at all and deserves neither respect nor serious consideration.”
#2 The Police
Ask the subject if it is the responsibility of the state, the police, to protect you (the people) from criminal attacks. Do you believe that the police are required to protect you by law? Unless they have been previously educated, your subject may naively respond to the effect that yes, the police must protect you, it is the law.
It is in fact NOT the law that the state, the police, protect individual citizens from attack or harm. In Warren vs. District of Columbia the court found that the D.C. police “owe no specific duty” to protect individuals from criminal harm. Therefore the District was held harmless. Warren was a woman who, along with her two female roommates, was brutalized horribly after the D.C. police were called but never arrived to help.
In a more recent case, the Manhattan Supreme Court ruled that the city of New York could not be sued after NYPD officers failed to stop a man from being brutally stabbed on a subway, even though the officers were present when the attack occurred. The court again found that the police had “no special duty” to protect citizens as individuals.
Arriving safely at this point with our subject, we will reinforce the fact that self-defense is a human right and that the state does not have a legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal harm. Now it is time to discuss the tools. This step will include a short battery of questions.
If someone is trying to kill you or a loved one, is it legal to use a hammer as a tool to stop them? …is it legal to use a knife to stop them? …a gun to stop them? …a coffee pot to stop them?
If the answer to the battery of question is yes, you can continue with a final two part question.
Does the tool used for self-defense have any bearing on whether or not the defense was justified? Or, are the person’s actions what justifies self-defense, not the object used?
Having come to the conclusion of the discussion, your subject should agree that every human has a natural right to self-defense. They understand that the government/police have no duty to protect you as an individual (and in reality cannot). Finally, it is not the object that determines what is and is not justifiable self-defense but the actions of the person.
With the common ground established between you and a person that possesses the capacity for rational thought, you are now able to pose what should be a rhetorical question. What is the purpose of gun control laws, other than to hinder the law abiding and offer an imaginary “feel good” solution to a human behavior problem?6
Drop the microphone and walk off stage.