The Senate Judiciary Committee has been having hearings on gun control. On the pro gun control side, Gabby Giffords, victim of a crazed gunman, said “too many children are dying.” At a hearing in Connecticut, the father of a child murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary gave similar testimony (and gave some in the blinded-by-bias media a chance to show off their mad video editing skillz).

And on the pro Second Amendment side we most often hear testimony from Wayne LaPierre, somebody else from the NRA, or lawyers arguing on behalf of the Second Amendment. They make arguments on constitutional grounds and even speak about people whose lives are saved because they had guns — but where are those people? Ask them to come forward at hearings and press conferences.

Let’s face it, the left usually kicks the right’s ass when it comes to emotional arguments that are designed to tug at the heart so aggressively that onlookers are too distracted to use their heads to think through what’s actually being presented to them (and that’s not necessarily a bad thing as we pride ourselves on being on the side of reason). However, emotional arguments can be constructed without selling out on the logic and common sense end of things, and that’s where the right needs to do a better job.

There certainly are no shortages of children (and adults) whose lives have been saved because of gun ownership. Almost every day there’s a story. Here’s one from just the day before yesterday:

A home invasion suspect was arrested at a hospital after a mother shot him during the crime at a Montgomery County home, deputies said Wednesday.

Erin, who asked to be identified only by her first name, told Local 2 she was putting her 6-year-old son to bed when she heard a loud noise coming from her bedroom on Mink Lake Drive Friday night.

“I threw the cover over my son and I took off running, screaming to the living room to let my dogs out,” she said.

Erin said she turned around and saw three masked men, pointing a gun right at her.

The woman had a gun — at least two actually — and it didn’t end well for one of the criminals. The other two fled, and the mother and her son were unharmed as a result.

Why can’t people like this be asked to testify against gun control? I’m sure some would agree to. Find mothers and fathers with children who can honestly say “if some of the more radical gun control measures you’re proposing were the law, my son, daughter and I would more than likely be dead right now.” I know, I know… a tragedy that happened is more newsworthy to the MSM than a tragedy that was averted (especially if they think the former helps push a liberal agenda and the latter a conservative one), but the pro Second Amendment side needs to more effectively address the method with which they’re being demonized.

Or… should we adhere to the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” rule? After all, the NRA has a higher popularity rating than President Obama (file that under “things you’ll never learn on the mainstream network newscasts”) and it’s looking like Dianne Feinstein’s gun control bill is DOA in the Senate — even Harry Reid won’t support it. Given all that, should the pro-Second Amendment side leave well enough alone? In my opinion that would be a fatal error.

Update: Gun rights advocates should also feature people like this man more as a reminder that the Second Amendment wasn’t written with hunting in mind.

Comments

18 Responses to “The Pro-Second Amendment Side Needs a Shift in How They Argue Their Case”

  1. Do Conservative Bloggers have to think of EVERYTHING? « The Daley Gator on January 31st, 2013 1:50 pm

    [...] the pro-gun rights arguments need to change to match the emotionalism in the anti-gun rights side. And he is right.  The Senate Judiciary Committee has been having hearings on gun control. On the pro gun control [...]

  2. Dexter_Alarius on January 31st, 2013 2:49 pm

    Suzanna Hupp, the woman whose parents were killed in the Luby's in Texas years ago is a great advocate.

  3. Truesoldier__ on January 31st, 2013 2:50 pm

    O/T…The UN has deceided that Israel must withdraw all of her citizens from Judea and Samaria.

    So it looks like we will get the first real display publicly of just how "friendly" Obama and Democrats are. I hope AIPAC and the Jewish/American communities are paying close attention.
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/

  4. jeffythequick on January 31st, 2013 3:12 pm

    I really don't like the way wars are fought nowadays… You spend your blood and treasure, occupy a country, install your own people, then give it back.

    I like the old-school method:
    You come in, win, then it's yours.

    This is nice, especially because it:
    1. Encourages countries to think twice about picking a fight.
    2. Encourages the people in those countries to be less eager to go to war.
    3. Solves a lot of the "resistance" issues, as the population has to understand that they're not playing by the old rules anymore.
    4. Makes it easier for "good" to win.
    5. Makes war more of a money making opportunity. This is the only case where the "blood for oil" people would have a case.

    So, let me get this straight: In 1967, Israel was attacked, they prevailed, then they have to give their winnings back?

    No Sale…

  5. Truesoldier__ on January 31st, 2013 3:13 pm

    Or for that matter, what about this lady as someone to argue why "large capacity magazines" are neccessary for self defense:

    “The perpetrator opens that door. Of course, at that time he’s staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver,” [Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman] told Channel 2’s Kerry Kavanaugh.

    The woman then shot him five times, but he survived, Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he moved.

    “She’s standing over him, and she realizes she’s fired all six rounds. And the guy’s telling her to quit shooting,” Chapman said.

    Right about that time I bet she wished she had not only had a pistol with a "high capacity" magazine, but also one that was of a larger caliber (like a .40 cal)
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/05/my-wif

  6. Truesoldier__ on January 31st, 2013 3:15 pm

    " On the pro gun control side, Gabby Giffords, victim of a crazed gunman, said “too many children are dying.”

    This is very similiar to Obama and his claim that if gun control saves even one life it is worth it.

    Like others have said, we should throw their "logic" right back in their faces and say the say thing about ending abortions.

  7. Truesoldier__ on January 31st, 2013 3:31 pm

    The only thing I would add to your list is that we go back to actually fighting a war and not trying to "win the hearts and minds" of the population. It doesn't work, especially when most of our enemies only respect one thing….strength. If we go to war we go to win period. Sure try to minimilize collateral damage, but if the other side tries to use the populace as a human shield well sorry it sucks to be you. They need to learn they either fight back so as to not be used as human shields or they end up a casualty of war.

    As Patton once said, “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.”

  8. JetHeadJoe on January 31st, 2013 4:24 pm

    Meh…it really doesn't matter how the right argues any issue. To the left (especially the schmucks in charge), we on the right are too stupid to realize what's right and what's wrong, and any discussion or debate is just for show, to satisfy the need for public debate. After all, they know better, damnit, and like it or not, we have to fall in line. Of course, all the gun control legislation in the world will be ignored. Just look at Chicago. After all, selling dope and running moonshine are illegal, and yet the pushers and the bootleggers don't care.

  9. Truesoldier__ on January 31st, 2013 4:46 pm

    Your right it will not change the opinion of the shcmucks in charge, but it could work wonders on the public at large. It is exactly what Reagan used to do. He would talk directly to the people when interviewed or at press conferences and ignore the media and the shcmucks.

  10. Truesoldier__ on January 31st, 2013 4:49 pm

    In other news, it looks like the Hagel conformation hearing isn't going good. As a matter of fact it is going so bad that libs have taken to the social media sites to blast the choice of Hagel. Here is some examples:

    "this hearing is beginning to remind me of the 1st Obama-Romney debate"

    "Did Hagel just call Iran’s government “elected and legitimate”?"

    and my all time favorite:

    "hagel’s making biden look rhetorically sure-footed"
    http://freebeacon.com/this-hagel-hearing-is-a-dis

  11. Doug on January 31st, 2013 6:36 pm

    Yeah, the idea isn't to change the minds of Dianne Feinstein and Michael Bloomberg or even MSNBC, but to go around them. Too often "our side" gets caught on the defensive in reaction to their hearings. Pro gun rights public officials should be having their own hearings. Make THEM prove how their ideas will stop another Sandy Hook psycho. Instead there's the NRA staring up at politicians and being forced to prove they didn't have anything to do with a mass murder. It's ridiculous.

  12. jeffythequick on January 31st, 2013 9:17 pm

    None of these yokels, including the ones on "our" side could stand up to an engineering review. They'd be creamed with their non-data-driven arguments.

  13. mcmeador on February 1st, 2013 1:43 am

    Yeah, I'm sure if a father of a child killed in the Newtown massacre is willing to speak against gun control, you could easily find a father whose child was saved by a gun to speak against it.

  14. ChapBix on February 1st, 2013 2:15 am

    "So, let me get this straight: In 1967, Israel was attacked, they prevailed, then they have to give their winnings back?

    No Sale… "

    Totally agree. Only in the world of progs.

  15. ChapBix on February 1st, 2013 2:17 am

    She hits him five times with .38 caliber rounds and he survives? How does that happen? All flesh wounds grazing him? Too bad she did not have one round left to place dead center on his crotch.

  16. Dexter_Alarius on February 1st, 2013 3:54 pm

    There was a father of a child killed during Columbine that wrote a good article against gun control. They need to find that guy.

  17. jeffythequick on February 1st, 2013 4:32 pm

    I remember the look on my oldest son's face when he heard George C. Scott give that speech.

    I said, "my grandfather was on the side the US was fighting (he was drafted out of his 9th grade class at the point of a gun in Germany)* and he had heard of and feared Patton."

    That is why. Patton was a warrior, not a politician trying to win a majority of the population.

    *He was a nurse on the Eastern Front. I don't ask him about it, as he still has nightmares when he does bring it up.

  18. Skip on February 2nd, 2013 10:55 pm

    If Dianne Feinstein's bill which is backed by Obama is not DOA in the GOP controlled House…they will lose the House in 2014. Allen West is now gone…he would have made a very good Speaker of the House but there is no leadership.

    The GOP still has not learned to play the game of 'politics' the way the Dems do. We are always 5 steps behind them…playing catch up.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.