Top Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

it seems like everyday my history teacher my friend and i get into a heated argument about the second amendment and how "obama's

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • it seems like everyday my history teacher my friend and i get into a heated argument about the second amendment and how "obama's

    it seems like everyday my history teacher my friend and i get into a heated argument about the second amendment and how "obama's trying to take it from us" my friend and i dislike the bills that they are proposing but my teacher is for them. do any of you have any quik facts that i can use to shut him up?

  • #2
    Since your friend is a history teacher you might try this statistic on him:

    170,000,000 people were KILLED in the 20th century alone by governments that had made gun ownership (i.e. self defense) illegal among their citizens (mostly in the name of safety).

    One school full of children or one movie theater full of spectators being killed is a terrible tragedy that shocks us all. However, what actually happened in the 20th century is HORRIFIC! Yet for some reason history teachers fail to look back even 100 years. Ask him to research genocide during that period... have him take a look at Russia, China, Germany, Rawanda and many more. Have him look at the gun legislation in those countries prior to the genocide.

    It was because of consistent historic facts like this that our founding fathers cast the second amendment to our constitution... so that such horrors would not happen to our citizens.

    My father said very little about the horrors he experienced during World War II, but he literally had tears in his eyes when he told me that the liberation of Auschwitz was the most horrific human travesty he could ever imagine. The shock stuck with him his whole life. The one thing he made me promise was to never let them take our guns away. He said “Those poor fools didn’t have a chance! They took their guns away and they had no means to defend themselves”. This wasn’t the first time of course, as your teacher will discover. Let’s hope it never happens in the United States. There is a very high probability it won't as long as millions of citizens can defend themselves.

    Best of luck! You will need it! There aren't many public school teachers in America anymore capable of learning history from their students.

    Comment


    • #3
      Ha, I've been there. Don't argue with your teachers, you will never win. Most of the time your teachers will make you look, well, stupid. I've taken a lot of history/social studies/gov't classes and have had the most conservative and the most liberal teachers imaginable. Even had a libertarian for contemporary issues and sociology. I find it more interesting just to sit back and listen, and take everything they say with a grain of salt.

      Comment


      • #4
        Remember, Columbine took place during an assault weapon ban, it didn't do much to save them.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm with Ncarl...arguing will get you nowhere. He has his opinion firmly set in stone and you have yours, so there's no point in arguing. If he starts pushing his views about gun control onto the class, remind him that you're there to learn history, not his opinion on gun control.

          If he continues on a course of pushing his anti-gun agenda on the class, don't push statistics on him because most of the "statistics" you hear are completely bogus...rather ask him questions that he has no answers for, or the answers to the questions are not answers that support your argument and not his (you know...like the media does!). Such as:

          "So how has disarming society worked out for people in the past?"

          "If you ever had to defend yourself with a firearm, how many rounds would you prefer to have in your magazine, 5, 10, or 30?"

          "By today's standards, which is a better action for self protection, break action, bolt action, pump action, lever action, or semi-auto?"

          "It seems to me that history is full of civil unrest and war, correct? So if our home soil is ever invaded, how do you intend to protect yourself or your family?"

          "Natural disasters can cause looting, panic, riots, and unprecedented violence. If a natural disaster occurred, how do you intend to protect yourself, your family, and your resources?"

          "If somebody was to march through the front door of the school right now with a firearm, would we not all be sitting ducks? I mean who's going to stop someone with a gun? What do we have in this school that is going to legitimately protect us from an armed intruder?"

          "If violent and troubled people are the problem, then shouldn't we be working toward a solution that keeps troubled and violent people out of society? I mean after all, even if they don't have a gun, they can still hurt and kill people with bombs, knives, tools, blunt objects, poisons, fire, and their bare hands, can they not?"

          Comment


          • #6
            Your teacher is breaking a very rigid rule of teaching. He is expressing his opinions upon you and not allowing you to think for yourself.

            Comment


            • #7
              I agree with Ncarl, I used to argue with my French teacher. Other than him, my school is really conservative. He has also learned to just keep his mouth shut because he ain't getting nothing into our stubborn heads. My CAD teacher listens to Rush in class. That and my history teacher called in "sick" on opening turkey.

              Comment


              • #8
                The point you are missing is that "winning" an argument with you teacher will not win the war-What you want to do is clearly make your case, in a calm manner, you want your teacher to think about what you believe, and over time his pondering of your points may(but don't hold your breath) change his way of thinking. build your case. He most likely says that "no one wants to take your guns away, we just want to stop bad people from getting them" and " you register a car, why not a firearm?". you then take your time and write out your arguments. your friend should play "devils advocate" and try to poke holes in your logic, your facts. address these weaknesses and the enter in to the discussion with your teacher.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I think you are there for an education and need to focus on that fact and leave politics, distractions and keep your attempts to beat your history teacher out of the classroom. History teaches the biggest expression is the ballot box. Use it. You are not going to win, quite possibly get a reduced grade and are cheating yourselves and your fellow students from the depth of an education you could be getting. You can’t judge a person as a litmus of 1 issue or his ability to teach or his opinion is invalid because his opinion is different then yours. Be the adult and move on.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Pfffffffffffft..... That's the wind coming out of my sails after reading RockySquirrels post.... I say create a short, fact based response filled with ethical, moral, and staggering reasons why the 2A shouldn't be changed. Then express that you're not going to bring it up again, and thank your teacher and classmates for their time. Leave your heartstring opinions out of it for the sake of the conversation, as they are usually ignored in comparison to facts. Also, leave reasons with variables out, as they are easily cast aside as myth. Good luck, and thank you for being an advocate at such a young age.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The majority of the teachers in this country today are against gun ownership and the second amendment.
                      The majority of the news media and the stinking democraps in this country are also against guns. It is very difficult to change the opinion of anti gun person.

                      A perfect example we have gun owners on this website who are pro Obama and a diehard liberals. Many individuals on this site have debated and argued with these same misinform people in the Backlash and Blowback page. After all this time they are still true blue liberal Obama lovers.

                      I would tell your teacher we both have philosophical differences on this issue and then start spending your time talking to the hot chicks in your class.
                      Good Luck!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        miller73-
                        Google Kyle Wintersteen and read his article in Guns&Ammo. Can't post it, keeps getting flagged for obscenity, and there ain't a dirty word in it!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          By JOYCE LEE MALCOLM

                          Americans are determined that massacres such as happened in Newtown, Conn., never happen again. But how? Many advocate more effective treatment of mentally-ill people or armed protection in so-called gun-free zones. Many others demand stricter control of firearms.

                          We aren't alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia, for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred. Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the answer. Their experiences can be instructive.

                          In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.

                          Nine years later, in March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, a man known to be mentally unstable, walked into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot 16 young children and their teacher. He wounded 10 other children and three other teachers before taking his own life.

                          Since 1920, anyone in Britain wanting a handgun had to obtain a certificate from his local police stating he was fit to own a weapon and had good reason to have one. Over the years, the definition of "good reason" gradually narrowed. By 1969, self-defense was never a good reason for a permit.

                          After Hungerford, the British government banned semiautomatic rifles and brought shotguns—the last type of firearm that could be purchased with a simple show of fitness—under controls similar to those in place for pistols and rifles. Magazines were limited to two shells with a third in the chamber.

                          Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison.

                          The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.

                          Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who have come into the possession of a firearm, even accidentally, have been harshly treated. In 2009 a former soldier, Paul Clarke, found a bag in his garden containing a shotgun. He brought it to the police station and was immediately handcuffed and charged with possession of the gun. At his trial the judge noted: "In law there is no dispute that Mr. Clarke has no defense to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant." Mr. Clarke was sentenced to five years in prison. A public outcry eventually won his release.

                          In November of this year, Danny Nightingale, member of a British Special Forces unit in Iraq and Afghanistan, was sentenced to 18 months in military prison for possession of a pistol and ammunition. Sgt. Nightingale was given the Glock pistol as a gift by Iraqi forces he had been training. It was packed up with his possessions and returned to him by colleagues in Iraq after he left the country to organize a funeral for two close friends killed in action. Mr. Nightingale pleaded guilty to avoid a five-year sentence and was in prison until an appeal and public outcry freed him on Nov. 29.
                          ***

                          Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Martin Bryant, an Australian with a lifelong history of violence, attacked tourists at a Port Arthur prison site in Tasmania with two semiautomatic rifles. He killed 35 people and wounded 21 others.

                          At the time, Australia's guns laws were stricter than the United Kingdom's. In lieu of the requirement in Britain that an applicant for permission to purchase a gun have a "good reason," Australia required a "genuine reason." Hunting and protecting crops from feral animals were genuine reasons—personal protection wasn't.

                          With new Prime Minister John Howard in the lead, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement, banning all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive licensing system on other firearms. The government also launched a forced buyback scheme to remove thousands of firearms from private hands. Between Oct. 1, 1996, and Sept. 30, 1997, the government purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 of the banned guns at a cost of $500 million.

                          To what end? While there has been much controversy over the result of the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.

                          According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported "a modest reduction in the severity" of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.

                          In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.

                          What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.
                          Ms. Malcolm, a professor of law at George Mason University Law School, is the author of several books including "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," (Harvard, 2002).
                          A version of this article appeared December 27, 2012, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            That takin' them guns away from everbody shore worked for those Brits and Aussies, did it not?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Really nice comments from Bioguy and CRM3006 as usual. These are worth thinking about! Thanks for taking the time guys.

                              Comment

                              Welcome!

                              Collapse

                              Welcome to Field and Streams's Answers section. Here you will find hunting, fishing, and survival tips from the editors of Field and Stream, as well as recommendations from readers like yourself.

                              If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ for information on posting and navigating the forums.

                              And don't forget to check out the latest reviews on guns and outdoor gear on fieldandstream.com.

                              Right Rail 1

                              Collapse

                              Top Active Users

                              Collapse

                              There are no top active users.

                              Right Rail 2

                              Collapse

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              • Reply to There goes my deer season
                                by rock rat
                                No fires in the unit I was going to hunt, just bad conditions and part of the same National Forest as all the fires.

                                I am hunting a unit...
                                Today, 08:47 PM
                              • There goes my deer season
                                by rock rat
                                Not that it much matters, not that much meat on a deer anyway, but walk and stalk mule deer hunting is for fun not meat. Whole unit canceled due to the...
                                Yesterday, 09:38 PM
                              • Reply to Rest Easy
                                by crm3006
                                From Danbo: "Some of the cases that SCOTUS will hear next month. No 2A cases yet but I expect that to change."

                                We can only pray...
                                Today, 08:31 PM
                              • Rest Easy
                                by jhjimbo
                                Rest easy 2nd amendment, you are safe now - for the time being....
                                Yesterday, 08:55 PM
                              • Reply to More on crawfishin' lightfoot lindsey grahm
                                by rock rat
                                Maybe you all don't understand how the legal process works. If someone isn't breaking any laws then we leave them alone here in the US. Just how things...
                                Today, 08:28 PM

                              Right Rail 3

                              Collapse

                              Footer Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X