A few arguing points with a liberal

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • GlockOwner

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Feb 15, 2013
    Dallas (Oak Cliff)
    Here is a hypothetical debate with a liberal about gun control. Let me know how I can improve my argument and where I completely screwed up.

    Liberal: Why can't you gun nuts just accept the common sense measurement of universal background checks?! Help keep the guns out of the criminal's hands!

    Me: Universal background checks won't do anything to keep criminals from acquiring guns, because the "black market" doesn't exactly obey the law.

    Liberal: I get that, but at least it would be a step in the right direction.

    Me: What direction are you trying to go here? All a universal background check would do is be the first step to establishing a registry, that will ultimately lead to confiscation.

    Liberal: You gun idiots need to stop assuming things like that, we just want people to be able to feel safe in their own neighborhoods!

    Me: Diane Feinstein, a champion of stupid gun control measures, is on record as saying she wants all guns gone. In New York, where there is already a gun registry, they are using that info to issue notices to certain people to turn in certain guns.

    Liberal: Well maybe a gun free society is a safer society

    Me: Check your facts. Look at the FBI crime stats compared to the Home Office (keeps record of crime stats for England and Wales) crime stats. On a per capita level, the US has quite a bit LESS violent crimes than England and Wales, yet England and Wales have ridiculous restrictions on the ownership of firearms.

    Liberal: Sure the UK has more violent crimes, but the US has more gun crimes, and I'd much rather have 3 innocent people with a black eye and busted nose after a robbery than 1 innocent person with a bullet to the head after a robbery. We should strive for a gun free society and we would have less murder!

    Me: Ever heard of the second amendment?

    Liberal: You know the 2nd amendment has the word REGULATED attached to it? It also says the "militia"! You are not part of a militia, and even if you were, it is well within the governments power to regulate as they see fit!

    Me: "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." I know exactly what it says. The part being regulated is the militia, and the word regulate, in that context, means that the militia, in order to be considered "regulated", needs to make sure they have all the necessary accouterments to succeed. Also, let's replace a few words of the second amendment to help you figure out a few things. "A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the health of the nation, the right of the people to keep and eat cereal shall not be infringed.

    Who gets the cereal, the breakfast or the people?" (stole that line from a member here lol)

    Liberal: Ok fine, if you want to play semantics, what about the fact that the second amendment was written when muskets were used and not assault weapons like the AR-15? Turn in your AR-15, cause that isn't protected at all!

    Me: Under that logic, nothing on TV is free speech, since there wasn't TV back then. The government gets to control everything said on TV.

    Liberal: Why do you NEED an AR-15 that can shoot 30 times before reloading?! If you can't hit your target after 30 shots, you shouldn't own a gun! (I've stolen a few lines from members of this very forum, cause they were good at getting the point across)

    Me: I could ask the same thing about all kinds of useless crap you have...but the thing is...the 2nd amendment protects my right to have an AR-15...it is, after all, call the Bill of RIGHTS...not the Bill of NEEDS.

    Liberal: What if we repeal the 2nd amendment? We've repealed an amendment before, why can't we repeal the 2nd?

    Me: "...shall not be infringed" A government is there to PROTECT these rights, and these rights are there to protect us from the government!

    Liberal: Why do you live in fear like the government is going to come for you and imprison you or something?! Get a grip, it won't happen! You just sound like a conspiracy lunatic!

    Me: Surely, after everything that has come to light over the past year, you do not STILL trust the government?!


    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jan 17, 2011
    Republic of Texas
    Don't let them label you and turn the argument into a personal attack.

    If they can find some little reason to discount you personally, then they control the subject of the argument. The debate becomes a matter of defending yourself against their prejudices and catchphrases. They stand a better chance of getting you frustrated over being on the defensive about your beliefs, color, religion, social status, education level, physical characteristics, voting history, preferred hobbies/sports, and all matter of other non-important things to the discussion. If they try, call them out on it and get back to the facts, they hate that. Try to maintain the high road and don't jump into the mud to play their game. (Of course many will say that is what is currently wrong with the American political system, one side has not fought fire with fire and tried to use facts instead while getting the crap beat out of them.)

    Good Luck,


    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 24, 2009
    They don't care about facts. Everything from them is "i feel" fill in the blank.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk


    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 22, 2012
    "Universal Background Checks" are neither universal nor true background checks.

    They're not universal because any two people can transfer a gun and no one will know about it unless that gun is used in a crime and recovered. The only way it can be universal is through universal registration and frequent renewals, with police verifying continued ownership of the guns. And with millions of firearms in circulation already, there is no way they will all be voluntarily registered.

    They're not background checks because they only stop people who have been identified (to one extent or another) by the state as a criminal. And what's the rate of unsolved violent crimes? 40%? The rapist/murderer who could buy a gun in a private transfer could buy one from an FFL, too, unless he was already caught and convicted. A background check that might catch criminals BEFORE they act would involve interviews with police, psychiatrists, family, neighbors, co-workers, searching financial and academic records, etc. And the fact that any of those people could stop the transfer is a definite infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

    And once we create the registration and Soviet-style background checks, ask the liberal if we could do all of that on prospective parents to make sure they don't abuse their children, and then on the children themselves to find any potential criminals as soon as possible. And if the liberal really wants to live in a country that would do that, they can save themselves a lot of time and work by moving to North Korea.


    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2013
    "We should strive for a gun free society and we would have less murder! "

    This is an appealing argument to a liberal, but it falls under the old adage of "if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

    Here's how I would approach this one:

    1. We've tried a gun-free society. In Washington D.C., they completely and entirely banned handguns. The murder rate skyrocketed in the subsequent years.

    2. The reason a gun-free society isn't some safe panacea of utopia is because guns in the hands of legal owners are not used to kill people. Guns are used to STOP CRIME. Obama ordered a study of the effect of guns in society to be done by the Centers for Disease Control. They did the study (which you can read here) and concluded that guns in the hands of private citizens are used to prevent crimes between 500,000 and 3 million times per year. (Be sure to emphasize that this was from the study that Obama ordered to be done by executive directive!) So if you took all the guns away from all the legal gun owners, you could expect to see at least 500,000 and as many as three million more crimes committed each year.

    3. Guns are most effective to stop crime when used by women, the elderly, or small-framed individuals. In a world with no guns, the bigger and stronger will be able to dominate and run over the smaller and weaker of us. Having a defensive firearm overcomes any physical advantage a criminal may have over a mother, a grandmother, a man in the wheelchair, or any other person that the criminal may otherwise have been capable of physically overpowering.


    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 5, 2013
    Helotes, TX
    The biggest obstacle to arguing with a liberal is proving that a. you are not a racist and b. the government does not mean well. Either way, it's a lost cause.



    Greeneye Tactical
    DK Firearms
    Tyrant Designs
    Every Day Man
    Weapon displays
    Defender Tactical

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Latest member
    Top Bottom