So, I have a debate on gun control I'm taking part in tomorrow, i will be the only pro-gun speaker there

So, I have a debate on gun control I'm taking part in tomorrow, i will be the only pro-gun speaker there.
>tips on shutting down sjw kommies?

Other urls found in this thread:

theseattletribune.com/ex-army-sniper-takes-out-neighbors-home-intruder-from-bedroom-window/
youtube.com/watch?v=BHIQtxLCgrM
soundcloud.com/louderwithcrowder/79-islamaphobia-oh-noes-dave-rubin-gerald-morgan-and-anni-cyrus
washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/28/three-burglars-entered-an-oklahoma-home-the-owners-son-opened-fire-with-an-ar-15-deputies-say/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

An hero in front of them
>massive keks

...

That's a concept.

say this. "are you willing to die to take away my guns?. becasue i am willing to die to keep my guns" And tell them that guns can work in a society. if schools start teaching gun controll it will - accidents.

There's no chance. Even if you kill it, they'll just start bringing nonsense into the mix.

Steven Crowder has an episode where he covers gun control. For the most part he's pretty on point, and takes a more logical side to it. Look it up. Might give you a few points to go off.

That's how I figure it will go down. Thanks though

Bring your firearm. Have a friend or someone else blast in the room in a really threatening manner. Pull out your gun, point and neutralize him with your voice commands ONLY (this is important).

Win them over for ever.

Watch gun debate videos on youtube. Especially ones where the anti gun libtard was owned.

I'm a so called SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR and a communist, and every (anti-state) communist I know is pro-guns. People need to be armed to be able to defend themselves against government (and fascist) oppression!

>Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
- Mao

Hitler took the guns, Stalin took the guns. Guns are important for freedom.

I'm sure the NRA has a ready to go guide on exactly what you need.

You're welcome.

discuss how important it is to have a well armed militia/minutemen

>Bring gun to discussion.
>Make caramel colored friend dress up like a terrorist.
>Make caramel colored friend show up at discussion and wave around a gun screaming "Allahu akbar".
>Shoot caramel colored friend with your own gun.

Easy win + you will be a gun wielding hero!

Take your gun with you and point at the others with it and say :
I could shoot you all right now, who would stop me ?

NEVER trust anyone that wants to take away your means of self defense, or protecting your family. The Clintons and Obama have allowed Mexican drug cartels and ISIS to freely enter America and kill citizens.

theseattletribune.com/ex-army-sniper-takes-out-neighbors-home-intruder-from-bedroom-window/

Quote the founding fathers. Data on DC v. Heller. Correlation between gun sales going up and violent crime going down. Europe has a higher violent crime rate when you take into account that they count 3 murders as one. The most violent places in the u.s. are cities with gun control (Camden Newark Chicago NYC, DC etx.) More than 98 percent of mass shootings have occured in gun free zones. Cite kathy giffords shooting where man with gun illegally in gun free zone stopped violent shooter GG no RE

This

youtube.com/watch?v=BHIQtxLCgrM

Piers Morgan Gets OWNED By Ben Shapiro on gun debate.

It sucks. In my high school senior year we did a gun control debate, right after Sandy Hook happened.
It was just my friend and I on the 'pro gun' side and the whole class (Plus the teacher) on the 'anti gun' side.
No matter what facts were brought up, they just went on about "Tell that to the parents".

Emotions do not constitute a debate. I cannot stress that enough, especially when it's the only thing you have top argue your point.
Use facts and logic and reinforce that with emotions if needed.

>Red neck detected

Memorize gun positive facts.

Canada has gun control and is more free than the US, just compare our incarceration rates

Call out emotional arguments. More people die from car accidents, baseball bats, knives and fists than guns. More kids die in swim Ing pools than accidental shootings. 98% of shootings are in self defense sic. Jon lott

"babies can have toys why can't I ????"

this

Go ask /k/

>Guns are important for freedom.

No they are not, there are countries that are a lot "freeer" than the US and they have literally 0 weapons.

Stop falling for this meme you wouldn't stand a chance against the government anyways.

Edge Lord extreme

Here homie. Here's the podcast. If you don't get anything out of it, at least it's entertaining.

soundcloud.com/louderwithcrowder/79-islamaphobia-oh-noes-dave-rubin-gerald-morgan-and-anni-cyrus

Pic related

what are they

Just show how important the 2nd amendment is and having the right to protect yourself. Ask the question what would you do if someone was robbing your home or trying to rape your girlfriend, etc.

>"are you willing to die to take away my guns?. becasue i am willing to die to keep my guns"
>I am ready to kill people over material possesions
You'd get a free ticket into a mental hospital.

1. Put the gun against your head
2. Pull trigger (don't be a pussy)
3. Win debate

Should have said, "But we're talking about guns, not people."

Our argument was showing how "assault weapons" do not exist and are just regular sporting arms with cosmetic features that do not change the capability of the weapon.

That if they ban those, it won't effect criminals or people who have the illegally (As Adam Lanza did, he killed his mother to get the guns). As well as how, hypothetically, if they banned the "evil" weapons that they wouldn't be satisfied and would keep coming after other things until it's a full-on gun ban.
To which their argument was "Why do you NEED...", which just proved my point. They will never be satisfied and will always go for more.

Also good. Point out that they don't care about lives, they only care about guns because they are needlessly scared of them.
Far more likely to die from something not meant to kill.
Another stat they love to fudge is an overall "gun death" statistic which includes justified shootings, police actions, and suicides. Not an overall criminal number.

>more free than the US
Can't make fun of islam

There aren't any, unless they're alternative facts.

Just open carry one on your hip. They will get intimidated and scared and agree with everything you say. That's the whole point of carrying a gun. To enforce your opinion and prove to them that you are not a faggot.

No, he's ready to kill people who want to take away his constitutional rights. Big difference.

take real life examples of gun owners defending themselves successfully in a manner that was lawful (lawful to use deadly force)

contrast with examples of violence that could have been prevented had someone been a lawful possessor (in the home) or carrier (outside the home)

You'll impress them and make us proud

Armed men are citizens. Unarmed men are subjects.

can't tell if ironic or retarded

bonus points for women and/or children lawfully defending themselves from violence or rape

Everyone fails at what the 2nd amendment is about.

Read it plainly and without leading it.

It states the purpose simple and easily.

Government hates the 2nd amendment for the same reason we should love it.

>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.

...

>constitutional rights
Nice meme.
You know it says "organised militia" in the constitution right? That doesn't mean everyone.

Guns don't kill people. Paranoid, edgy faggots with vigilante fantasies do. With guns.

Firstly, don't call them SJW.
It isn't a social justice issue. You'd look foolish in front of people for trying to connect the two.

Gun control is about law.
Plain and simple.
The EXTENT should be your focus.

Don't go into the tired old notions of "my 2nd amendment". That's an easy to spot fallacy.
Amendments and a constitution can be changed and ratified.

So you'd lose there.

Don't use scare tactics either. You know-- the entire " criminals vs. civilians" or "soldiers vs. civilians" line either.
The numbers for either side of these arguments can be used for and against the debate. It also upholds the subliminal message that we gun owners are paranoid and prone to violence-- the EXACT thing we don't want.

Do use the following, as they make extremist on either end confounded:
1.) There are already millions of firearms in private homes. Suggest police should up their focus on finding illegal and undocumented firearms.

2.) Probe the other side with questions regrading their stance. Find a weakness and follow through.

The answer to 1984 is 1488.

So you're finally admitting USA is in many ways alike to pre-war Germany?

>fighting for your own possessions is wrong
good goy.

Britfag detected

>believing Sup Forums memes
The bill that recently passed was to crack down on a few anti Islam groups that a guy who shot 6 people in a mosque was apart of

That it requires a human to do evil. Statistically, mass shootings are a fraction of a percent and far more people are killed in other ways.
If the problem was just as simple as banning something, then why not ban hurt/killing others?

You can also look up statistics on self-defense. Sometimes criminals are deterred just from the person brandishing a gun, no shots fired.

Armed men are paranoid cowards.

So you're willing to kill a man over your wallet?

this argument always misses the point

a militia is made up of citizens that are otherwise not part of the standing army

the point of the 2nd amendment was not to create a formal "2nd army/militia"

it was to ensure that the average citizen was armed in case a militia - someone other than the standing army- was needed for battle

if what you're saying is true than the 2nd amendment really just means "the army can have guns" which is fucking redundant and retarded

You have less niggers. Give it another two generations with your immigration plan and you'll be begging to come to America where all we have are uppity niggers.

Use Australia as a gun control example. Gun laws here were changed after the Port Arthur massacre which resulted in a drop in suicide by gun by 67% but did very little to drop gun related homicide.

There was an initial drop but it was low and hasn't dropped significantly in the 10 years since.

Gun control laws simply don't have any effectiveness on people who break the law.
"I'm going to go kill someone but I better not do it with a gun because it's against the law"....that type of thing.

Site this story (happened recently) of a 24 yr old killing 3 dindus who were there to rob his fathers house. washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/28/three-burglars-entered-an-oklahoma-home-the-owners-son-opened-fire-with-an-ar-15-deputies-say/

>it's not meant to be taken literally
It's like sunday school all over again.

nope. amerifag

>That doesn't mean everyone.
Actually, it does.
The militia is the populace of the United States. The everyday people who are expected to protect themselves, their homes and families, communities, and ultimately their nation.
If you're a legal citizen, you're in the militia.

...

Police are almost entirely useless concerning your protection. They are simply reactionary. Police are there to show up at your house and make reports... That is after your home has already been broken into, your shit had been stolen and your wife raped. It's up to you to protect yourself. Police will always be too late. People don't realize, but most crimes go unsolved. Don't become another statistic, arm yourself.

A crook doesn't need a gun to rob you, but you need a gun to protect yourself and your family.
Put it this way, you are at home with your wife and your daughter and 3-4 nignogs barge in flailing their long chimphands shouting stuff about how large their genitalia is (allegedly).
You alone can take 2 of them out maybe, if you have extensive self defense training maybe you can beat all 4, but with a gun you can send them running after dropping only one of them.

>Use Australia as a gun control example
OP is arguing FOR guns user, not against.

What is the context of the debate. No restrictions on guns, vs. some restrictions, vs. outright ban on guns? This doesn't seem like a very clear example. Also, what kind of class would have 1 person debate everyone else? Also, why would you ask on Sup Forums when you can literally just google "arguments for and against gun control" and have everything you need in 10 minutes.
>wait a minute

"literal" meanings are up for interpretation
>it's like english 101 all over again

"militia" is the word we're stumbling over
definition
"a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency."

>literally stay as abstract as you can or they'll see you don't have any arguments at all

go ask /k/

yes. anyone who is not willing to fight for what is theirs, does not deserve to have it.

>"literal" meanings are up for interpretation

in short, i am taking it literally and you're the one who's putting words in the founding fathers' mouths

But it can.

This debate circles around law and a very questionable set of circumstances that places us, Americans, in a unique spot unlike other countries.

We pro-gun people, to be honest, aren't coming up with very good reasons as of late. I've become more moderate after I visited a few friends in other countries with different laws on guns (Japan,Germany,Finland,Mongolia and AUE).

They all have different laws and attitudes towards firearms and I see the very stark contrast between us and them.

We make the wrong arguments in trying to secure our weapons (because that is what they are)-- and I have started to question if we are in the wrong mind set.

You may want to point out the double standard they hold for being pro-choice on abortion, but pro-life on guns. Which do they really think is more important, liberty or life? If it's life, why do they support abortions? If it's liberty, why do they frown upon gun rights?

If you use this though you have to,be prepared to address the same criticism leveled against yourself. Do you hold the double standard of being pro life on abortion but pro choice on guns? If so, this isn't a wise criticism to bring up.

Pic largely unrelated.

Yep. I know this. They don't work. Thats the example. Would you like a circle of paper and some crayons and I'll draw you a picture.
>> Obviously a circle would be best so you don't cut your fingers on the corners

You are not reading the amendment.

It says simply that an individual's right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Militia part is implying that a group of people (Militia) have the right to protect themselves from outside threats, including the government.

Oh, we don't have that.

To put into modern English for you dumb hippies.

" 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."

>Because you have to have a military to have a country, the people can also have guns.

as you can see, stumbling over the definition of "militia" can cause confusion in an otherwise "literal" interpretation

Remind them that the left uses suicides via gunshot to boost their gun violence numbers. Also after that a majority of gun violence comes from illegally owned firearms. Ask your opponent how making them illegal helps the law abiding gun owner who wants his/her firearm for their protection.

>why not ban hurt/killing others?
Don't you think that's already the case you fucking autist
In what country it isn't banned to kill someone
How the fuck can you be so clueless yet so proud of yourself

>>tips on shutting down sjw kommies?
Hollow tips shut down sjw kommies.

You are born like 30'000 years too late

"If you how Jews could have stopped the Nazi and the holocaust? If they had guns to fight back, anyone who try to disarm law abiding people is a Nazi"

Now they can't say you are a Nazi

>Australian population in 2012: 22,683,600
>American population in 2012: 312,780,968
Hard to shoot anyone when most people live miles away from each other.

Besides, the real number that counts overall is homicides in total. Not just homicides done with one kind of weapon.
Which the US will still lead at, but that's due to factors well beyond the availability of guns. That's going into problem with economics, social structures, and gang culture.

The issue with this is that it applies as much to,the cuckservatives as it does the liberals. They'd have to address their own hypocrisy to use that argument.

No.jpg

Don't make foolish arguments with hints of paranoia and insanity sprinkled in.

I was soundly beaten in my last debate when I was asked if I thought all weapons are OK to own by the average citizen.

I couldn't answer because either way I was trapped. Saying yes means my view is one of near chaos with citizens owning bombs and tanks.

If I said no, then I would be conceding that my view was the only judgement and that who was I to say which weapon was more dangerous?

I'm in my 30's and have been in many debates about this. I'm giving my advice here on this. We've been embarrassed by the NRA long enough.

Tell'em how you Obama is going to take ya gunz away.

>per 1 million people
Really makes you think.

Yeah let's create facts out of our ass at that point

In Autralia, there is a very densly populated area in the south east. Even Cities. Like Sydney.

IT SAYS PER 1 MIL PEOPLE ON THE TOP
>hurr durr how do I read

>>Besides, the real number that counts overall is homicides in total. Not just homicides done with one kind of weapon.

It's a gun control debate genius.

That's not what that clause meant at the time. Any historian will tell you that.
The National Guard and the British common wealth militias are key factors in that argument.