» News

The Money Shot

Home - by - February 3, 2013 - 13:58 America/New_York - 12 Comments

HT/ Redwagyu

The author of this American Thinker piece starts off his rant by deftly identifying what it takes to win a war in the court of public opinion -  effective propaganda. He also points out that propaganda is not a dirty word, and it doesn’t mean selling untruths. Posters telling people to make their swimming pools safer for young children are not what many people would define as propaganda, but by definition, they are.

So what is our task? Well, like good propaganda we must stay on point and not deviate from the perfect argument. In the case of gun control I do believe this is it.

(Yes, the author acknowledges that we shouldn’t even be having this argument, because the 2nd amendment has settled it. But here we are, fighting. So, please don’t waste time being right, yet losing. The 2nd amendment argument is not effective propaganda. But I agree, that this is-)

American Thinker


How many bullets might a person reasonably need to stop one or more violent specimens of the most dangerous animal on earth?”

Police departments apparently believe the answer to be 13 to 17 rounds of 9 millimeter, as shown by their use of Glocks with these magazine capacities. A .45 caliber sidearm has far more stopping power, so seven rounds (the maximum now allowed by New York) may be adequate to end a life or death confrontation that somebody else starts. Most women, however, along with small men, find the 9 millimeter’s lesser recoil far easier to handle. New York’s Legislature and governor therefore seem to think that the right of effective self-defense should be reserved for healthy and fit men, as opposed to women and senior citizens.

When it comes to rifles, police departments believe the answer to be no less than 30 rounds of .223, as shown by their deployment of AR-15s. The only difference between a police officer and a private citizen is that the former has the authority and duty to intervene in situations that the ordinary citizen should, or even must, avoid. If either needs a firearm for any non-sporting purpose, though, he or she needs it for exactly the same reason. The definition of a weapon that is “reasonable” for legitimate self-defense is therefore, “Any weapon that is routinely available to law enforcement agencies.”

I tried this on a talk show host who supports the proposed “assault weapon” ban, and he had no viable answer. Neither will anybody else against whom we deploy it in letters to the editor, talk radio, the Internet, and other media.


Read more:



  1. Menderman

    February 3rd, 2013

    “The definition of a weapon that is “reasonable” for legitimate self-defense is therefore, “Any weapon that is routinely available to law enforcement agencies.”


    (what is the full title of the article? I could’t find it over there.)

    Thumb up +1

  2. Redwagyu

    February 3rd, 2013


    Go to comments section of Gun Girls thread; I linked the article there.

    It came out on Friday and I saved it as a fav.

    Thumb up +2

  3. Dan Ryan Galt

    February 3rd, 2013

    Here in Connecticut, our former governor John Rowland has an afternoon radio show on WTIC-1080. He is a Republican but still pushes the “no one needs a AR-15 or a 30 round magazine” argument.

    He was also a U S representative who took an oath to defend the Constitution but seems to have not really read it. I’ll have to give him a call and use the points in this article to counter his gun control rationale.

    Thumb up +1

  4. BigFurHat

    February 3rd, 2013

    Would I be investigated if I said I was going to kill the guy responsible for the latest version of WordPress?
    If you go in and update a post with an edit, half the time it knocks out one or more of your links.
    I have to find a de-bugger.
    First I have to get them to realize they have a PROBLEM.

    Anyway. The link is restored.
    We may have to go to links that are the actual url, rather then “read more” in case the link knocks out you still have an url you can copy/paste.

    Thumb up +2

  5. Menderman

    February 3rd, 2013

    Thanks BFH.

    Thumb up +1

  6. cfm990

    February 3rd, 2013

    God, I hate the reasoning. It is not about self defense, or hunting, or target practice, or just feeling bad ass. IT’S ABOUT THE SELF PRESERVATION OF OUR WAY OF LIFE… OUR RIGHTS. It’s about our ability to fend off an armed aggressive military force.. It matters not, what the police think. It matters, what a war footing dictates. Not an armed intruder. Not a running deer. Not a target in the breeze. It’s for a defense against a well equipped army.
    Do I need thirty rounds, to bring down a deer? Do I need thirty rounds to stop an intruder? What I need, is the ability to defend this Nation. Be it from within, or, from without. That1 is the 2nd amendment.

    Noteworthy Comment Thumb up +10

  7. Menderman

    February 3rd, 2013

    and thanks to you too Redwagyu! Good article!

    Thumb up +2

  8. Dadof3

    February 3rd, 2013

    The neat part of all this is the clarity that has come out of necessity.

    Not so long ago it was a hard thing to say publicly that your right to arms was so very important because you may need to use them against oppressive Govt.

    Now it is becoming the only argument. Because, as hard as it is to imagine that fight – it is the very real threat to everyone’s freedom and our current Govt isn’t dis-proving the concern.

    I have never heard so many people be so clear about this until lately. The numbers are way up on this point compared to 10 years ago. IMO

    Thumb up +7

  9. Chief

    February 3rd, 2013

    I’d rather have Al-Qaeda in front of me than a Democrat behind me.

    Thumb up +4

  10. Czar of Defenestration

    February 3rd, 2013

    cfm990 nailed it.

    *Who says* that “the definition of a weapon that is reasonable for legitimate self-defense is any weapon that is routinely available to law enforcement agencies”, anyway?!). That’s why I didn’t find the article as persuasive as others might.

    Thumb up +1

  11. Menderman

    February 3rd, 2013

    Czar, I think reasonble limits of weapons is a must. An individual should not have a nuke or Sarin gas for example. I think a good place to start with “reasonable” is the way it is described in this article.

    Thumb up +1

  12. Dan Ryan Galt

    February 3rd, 2013

    Oh I don’t know Mr Menderman. I could think of a few good uses for Sarin gas and especially a Neutron bomb nuke, judiciously applied of course.

    Thumb up 0