Quote of the Day: Every Stupid Anti-Gun Argument In One Place Edition

“But the Second Amendment, the cornerstone of the NRA’s BS, is not relevant today. It was ratified in relation to state militias in 1791 and has no meaning in today’s world. The ‘right to keep and bear arms’ does not mean you can own a heat-seeking missile or a nuclear bomb, does it? . . .  The redcoats are not coming. But the rednecks are. And when they say that the Second Amendment protects them from a ‘tyrannical’ federal government, they are more than delusional. The U.S. military is so big, Mitt Romney’s annual ‘income’ couldn’t buy lunch at the Pentagon, especially if Paul Ryan’s budget passes.” – John Watson, Wilkes-Barre (PA) Times Leader, Only thing to fear is NRA’s fear tactic itself

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

62 Responses to Quote of the Day: Every Stupid Anti-Gun Argument In One Place Edition

  1. avatarkarlb says:

    Crappy thinking made even worse by bad prose.

  2. avatarMoonshine7102 says:

    Da fuq did I just read?

  3. avatarGS650G says:

    As November nears and the prospect of losing their man in the White House looms, be prepared for more irrational columns like this one.

    • avatarcaffeinated says:

      Irrational doesn’t even begin to describe the author’s thought and reasoning process.

    • Hahahaha, do you really think Obama can lose? That’s a riot. And do you really think the guy is delusional to say the 2A has no relevance today?

      He’s right-on about that.

      • avatarMatt Gregg says:

        2A has about as much relevance as the first amendment or any of the others. Start undermining one and you set a scary precedent.

        • Stop repeating what you’ve been told and think about it. The 2A and the 3A have no relevance in today’s world. The 1A does. That’s my opinion.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          That’s your opinion. Fortunately for us the Bill of Rights is in writing and is actually fact.

          Perhaps you should focus on protecting the 1st amendment since it has been under assault as much as the 2nd as of late.

      • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

        Hello, Laci. Or is it Dog Gone?

        *Robert, have you noticed that “Mike” seems to use at least two different handles here? One has Mike capitalized, one does not. Curious, no? Seems like two different personalities/posting styles, also.

  4. avatarSilver says:

    I’d swear that this has to be some kind of mass media troll, because no one could possibly be that stupid, delusional. I wouldn’t even know where to start when it comes to pulling this guy’s head out of his cavity.

    Assuming the sole purpose of the 2A is protection against a tyrannical government (which it’s not, it’s also used to protect normal people from societal predators, aka, those this guy no doubt loves), even a middle school student could point to Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of a primitive, relatively lightly armed populace putting the hurt on the “big” army. It’s more than size that wins a war, though I wouldn’t expect the pathetic intelligence behind this article to comprehend that.

    This post also reeks of projection, as it nearly always does with rabid antis. He equates “rednecks” with redcoats trying to conquer the country, implying that he fears the gains that law-abiding citizens are making as far as the 2A goes, which topple the socialistic despot utopia he craves to run his cowardly life. It’s such a thin veil that it’s hardly worth pointing out.

    I’m ashamed this piece of trash shares my state. Go over to the gun-free utopia of Newark, NJ, they’ll love you there.

    • avatarParthenon says:

      I wonder If he knows that the term redneck actually refers to members of unions. Specifically the United Mine Workers of America. Not only that I wonder if he knows that that in 1914 a group of these “rednecks” were fired on by National Gaurdsmen while they were striking for a safe working environment.

  5. avatarChas says:

    What. a. moron.

  6. avatarST says:

    I need to call my Congressman.We need a Brady Check for press editorials,fast.If the mentally ill have no business owning guns,they definitely have no business in front of a keyboard.

  7. avatarMike S says:

    And a bigot too. I always get a kick out of it when folks that purport themselves to be tolerant use “redneck” to describe “the bad people we should fear”.

    • avatarGus says:

      Whoa, there,… Rednecks are white and uneducated. You can’t commit bigotry against stupid white folks. It’s not possible. If there were more poor black gun owners his article would be considered a hate crime.

    • avatarMike2588 says:

      I agree. People like to pigeon hole gun owners into the narrow stereotype of red necks. They try to paint us as dumb, uneducated people so they can justify their argument for taking away our right guaranteed by the constitution.
      1 in 3 households in this country owns at least one firearm, so by his logic, 1/3 of Americans are red necks.

    • avatarChas says:

      The so-called “tolerant” left is anything but, with emphasis on the “but”.

    • avatarLongPurple says:

      Quit your job and “go on the county”. Tear up your diplomas. Burn your MENSA card. Try your best to fit John Watson’s idea of the typical gun owner.

  8. avatarRalph says:

    There’s no shortage of smug, self-righteous pr!cks in the world, is there?

  9. avatarCitizenClark says:

    “And when they say that the Second Amendment protects them from a ‘tyrannical’ federal government, they are more than delusional. The U.S. military is so big, Mitt Romney’s annual ‘income’ couldn’t buy lunch at the Pentagon, especially if Paul Ryan’s budget passes.”

    Perhaps Mr. Watson doesn’t realize that 270 million guns are in civilian hands in the United States. Of the world’s total known firearm supply of 875 million guns, all the police in the world only have around 26 million guns, and the world’s militaries hold another 200 million.

    • avatarMichael B says:

      I also think that he forgets that a gigantic part of the military is made up of Southerners, rural folk, and gun aficionados who don’t share his anti-gun, insane views.

  10. avatarBill F says:

    I wonder what the Times Leader’s editors were doing when this rubbish slipped through.

  11. avatarQajaqon says:

    Dude…

    I live in Washington state, on an Island, near Seattle. I also lived for many years in Eastern Washington. Both areas are at polar opposites in the political spectrum, and you can buy as many guns as you wish(those the laws do not restrict), and you are ‘allowed’ to open carry and with a CW Permit, carry a handgun concealed. Recently, there has been an surge of home invations where the invader(s) have been shot by the home owner.

    As I grew up guns were easy to aquire and always around, and everyone learned how to used them. We hunted with them. Dad collected and traded them with in and out of state, freely. There were people who carried handguns, rifles, and shotguns into bars, hand them over to the bartender upon leaving. There people who had rifle racks in their vehicle with serveral rifles in them. It was rare whe anyone ever used one in a fight, let alone purposely pursue one or more people. An on rare occation when there was a “badguy” the bad guy never went far(and went to jail rather being shot) when all around the “badguy” were people confronting him with a gun.

    Today, everyone seems to be afraid of a crack in the sidewalk,and ignorant of it at the same time, as they are of guns, unless something happens, then they blame someone or something other than the responsible party(s). Very few stand up for their rights, let alone know what their rights are, or what a right is and who/what is supposed to protect those rights(not hand out pieces or take the right away).

    So sad to see humans disregard their lives and rights.

    • avatarRalph says:

      Today, everyone seems to be afraid of a crack in the sidewalk,and ignorant of it at the same time, as they are of guns, unless something happens, then they blame someone or something other than the responsible party(s). Very few stand up for their rights, let alone know what their rights are, or what a right is and who/what is supposed to protect those rights(not hand out pieces or take the right away).

      So you’ve been to Boston.

  12. avatarAccur81 says:

    Mr. Watson’s to do list:

    1. Call 911. Get put “on hold.”
    2. Become crime victim.
    3. Re-evaluate life perspective.

  13. avatarTio Volatito says:

    The article isn’t as much about making anti-gun arguments as it is about pushing a false cultural divide. The references to “redneck” gun owners and the NRA being greedy corporations’ hand maiden is an attempt to make anyone desirous of more liberal gun rights seem dim-witted and easily fooled. The “progressives” don’t care about us having guns? Of course they do! They are loathe to admit it, but when all of their reasonable restrictions don’t make a dent in the criminal use of guns, banning guns and/or ammo will be the next step. After all, weez jus dum rednecks.

  14. avatarQajaqon says:

    Dude…..

    Secondly. Know your history: the Bits where taking weapons, not just guns and pwder and ball from the “americans”; the continental army was a small force in relation to the ‘redcoats’; the continental army were volunteers with a few persons conscripted, coming to gether as a militia; the continental army had to pirate or build their own weapons and ball and powder, swords and knives.

    And if they were to beat the odds and win the war, they had to come together as freemen, to not allow this to have to be done again. Smart men came together and created documents and a government(people/you) like no other.

    So fools like you can write what ever they choose, including, willfully flushing it all down the toilet.

    (NOTE: I was a member of CAG/SF for sometime: and very few of us successfully watch over your ‘freedom’ every f***ing day. Enjoy your freedom)

  15. avatarNDL66 says:

    As an African American, it would be highly amusing to give this guy a chance to call me a “redneck” to my face.

  16. avatarLevi B says:

    People who say an armed population could never overthrow the military are the same people who say Iraq/Afghanistan are unwinnable wars. Which is it? Can a population with small arms take on an army or not? And does he really want a military that will take illegal action against US citizens?

    Also, if the second amendment only applies to muskets, then the first only applies to newspapers and speech. Civil rights are civil rights, and everyone should be afforded them equally unless they have purposefully thrown them away.

    If he wants to live in a country where civilians are sheep without the option of carrying, there are tons and tons of those. This is one of the few well-off nations that has a government that still tentatively trusts its citizens with the means to overthrow it. If it didn’t, I would be quite a lot more worried than I am right now about the state of things. In fact, it is our duty under certain circumstances as outlaid by the Constitution to overthrow the government and start a new one that suits us better.

    Look to Libya–where would they be without small arms? Under Qadaffi’s thumb.

    • avatarCarlosT says:

      It’s two completely different propositions: if things get bad enough in Iraq and Afghanistan, policymakers can decide to cut their losses and be done with it. That’s not the case when their own safety is being threatened directly.

      We could have “won” in Iraq and Afghanistan if we were willing to be completely brutal beyond what is acceptable in today’s warfare. Julius Caesar could probably have wrapped up the campaign in a couple years. It would have involved a couple million dead civilians, but it would have been a Roman province for generations afterwards.

    • avatarkarlb says:

      Small arms and the most advanced military aircraft in the world.

  17. avatarSilver says:

    “And does he really want a military that will take illegal action against US citizens?”

    Yes he does; like most leftists and those who spit on the Constitution, he only wants his tyrannical will imposed on everyone else. They’re narcissists, believing everyone should conform to their own worldview rather than be afforded freedom.

  18. avatarPaul says:

    The typical commie prose strikes again. Give up, you are already subjugated, so why fight it?

  19. avatarMike OFWG says:

    Between my son, my brother, my father and myself, we have eleven years active duty and seventeen years total service, yet none of us was career. What makes this shitass think the American soldiers would fire on the American People? We all took an oath to defend the Constitution, not the Federal government.

  20. avatarJay says:

    The militia are the people of America. They are not a standing army, unlike todays. They are to train regularly and be equipped with the best arms. Isn’t there or was there a requirement (a law) that every man have the best rifle currently available in their home?

    That guy’s argument is we do not need guns because we have guns? We do not need a militia because we have a standing army? So, does that mean he wants to remove arms from every American and to disband the military?

    I do not understand. If I am 18, I can join the Army, then they will arm me, but when I go home I have to be disarmed? When I have a government uniform on it’s okay to have guns, once I take it off it’s no longer okay to be armed?

  21. avatarCarlosT says:

    Well, that too. Plus a design that will make your eyeballs bleed.

  22. avatar"Dr."Dave says:

    He is exactally wrong, actually.

    The second amendment is NOT about self defense, and it is NOT about hunting.

    It is about violent upheaval against a tyrannical government.

    That is very clear and easy to interpret.

    I know it wont happen, but civilians should have access to the exact same weaponry as any military unit. I’m not talking about M-16′s and M4′s, i’m talking AT-4s, anti aircraft weaponry, tanks, recoiless rifles, explosives, etc, etc.

    The next civil war isnt going to be fought with black

    • avatarTom says:

      Sounds like the heavy weapons could be fun. I suppose to bear arms would tend to mean individual rifle, shotgun, pistol type weapons; but any other man carried weapons could be fun as well.
      On a serious note…
      I do agree with your sentiments about an armed populace being a Constitutional check on a Despot.

    • avatarLongPurple says:

      Michael Collins and his “Twelve Apostles” were very effective in toppling oppression with not much more than a few handguns. I think American ingenuity and determination in a guerilla war could make up for a lack of armor, artillery, and air support.
      The Hungarians drove those magnificent Russian tanks out of Budapest with Molotov cocktails. You don’t need a tank to kill a tank.

  23. avatarGreg in Allston says:

    So, Mr. Watson spends an unknown amount of his precious time and 793 words to roll out this glorious missive. What an outstanding citizen, intellect and patriot!! Thank you so very much Mr. Watson for giving us your enlightened and well reasoned perspective. Truly, I can’t thank you enough. You’ve changed my life for the better and I will now be able to bask in the radiance of what truly must be the righteous path to enlightenment, peace and safety. On behalf of myself and my fellow citizens, I’d like to say a hearty and sincere THANK YOU; we will be forever in your debt and your wisdom knows no bounds. Thank you, thank you so very much, thank you from the bottom of my heart. Mr. Watson, thank you.

  24. avatarRoadrunner says:

    “The First Amendment has no application to today’s world. In 1791, all they had was movable type print and ink quills for the press, not for individuals. What, do you think the First Amendment means the press, much less individuals, can have access to electric typwriters? To radios? To computers? To the internet????!!!”

  25. avatarJay W. says:

    I grew up in the 60′s & 70′s across the river from Wilkes-Barre and am shocked and dismayed that this kind of BS now flies in my hometown area. Wilkes-Barre is now officially no longer “flyover” country and is now a joint suburb of Philadelphia and New York City.

  26. avatarLongPurple says:

    I linked to the paper’s site. I read the article in disbelief. Then I read some of the comments there — more and greater disbelief. There are some who think the Second Amendment is a “state’s rights” issue, establishing the right of the states to have a militia, and only members of that militia are permitted to have “a weapon”. I thought I’d hear the flat earth theory next, but it did not get that bad.

  27. avatarlaughingman says:

    I agree with him on one thing “And when they say that the Second Amendment protects them from a ‘tyrannical’ federal government, they are more than delusional.”. If the government wants you dead they can use drones, bombs or poisons. One’s guns are not going to do shit against such forces.

    (note I am a gun owner, not a “liberal anti gun person”)

    • Good for you. You’re more reasonable than most on this thread.

      • avatar"Dr."Dave says:

        They can try.

        Look at the battle of Faluijia and the urban engagements the Russians got into with the Chechens. They bombed Grozny to pieces, and their resistance was still effective.

        Technology and firepower help, but they are not the final answer.

        Irregular forces are really, really hard to stamp out.

        • avatarSanchanim says:

          Not to mention the Russian’s in Afghanistan.
          I don’t know if the original amendment was designed to take into account modern arms, however…
          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.
          As I read it, and as ruled by the Supreme Court, one Second Amendment decision. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia.

          So my question is such.
          Should the laws concerning concealed carry, and “legal firearms” be set by the states, or by the federal government?
          I can sort of understand we may not want folks to have RPG’s sitting in their closets, but to the extent of AR-15, or pistols with high capacity magazines. I live in CA and the laws here are as dumb as they come!

  28. avatarSarah says:

    “The redcoats are not coming. But the rednecks are. ”

    I believe this anti-gun sentiment is key, and we in the gun community need to pay attention to it. We need to understand what drives these people, and why they seem to defy all reason and sanity with their convoluted arguments. Basically, as someone who used to be anti-gun herself, it comes down to fear and ignorance.

    The sad truth is that gun owners have a BIG image problem. Most gun owners are perceived by anti-gun folks to be bat-shit crazy right wing, angry white men who: denigrate women, hate liberals, are wanna-be but too fat militia soldiers, stupid, and not quite sane. While we all know that’s not 100% true, some of it is, and it certainly IS our public image. It is also true that most anti-gun people are women, are often liberal, and literally have zero experience with guns themselves. See the problem here? The big deal is that women are often never taught to handle guns, there is very little in the media to contradict their fears (since the only time they hear about guns is in association with crime), and are either terrified by the thought of them or they see that it would be an uphill battle just to get some patient, understanding help with them. No woman wants to have to face a boy’s club just to learn about something she is already afraid of.

    The gun community needs to change it’s image, and soon. It is high time the NRA started putting some female and black spokespeople out there in the media. The gun manufacturers and sports outlets are beginning to see the light, but they are still leaving a hell of a lot of money on the table. It’s also high time that the good, responsible, upstanding gun owners among us self police the idiots who give us a bad name. You know them: the ones who post YouTube videos of their girlfriend’s reaction after an unwitting encounter with a Desert Eagle at the gun range. (By “self-policing” I mean stop LOLing at these videos in the comments section, because the women out there are reading it too.) Same goes for the ones who go on and on with the sexist remarks on gun forums – don’t think your comments and reactions aren’t being seen. Same goes for the ones who dismiss newbie questions at the gun store counter – don’t continue to patronize those stores, and tell them why you no longer want to give them your money.

    And for the love of God, bring a woman friend (or ANY anti-gun friend) to the gun range. Make it FUN. Tell them it will be perfectly SAFE. Don’t treat them like an idiot, don’t dismiss their concerns. Be patient. And remember, even if you don’t turn them into a new CCW, we are still talking about a HUGE untapped market out there for VOTES. Take away their fears, address their concerns by SHOWING them what normal people we are, and you will win hearts and minds. If we aren’t willing to do these simple things, then we can’t bitch about how many people out there “don’t get it.”

  29. avatarWayne says:

    Well said miss Sarah, bravo. Even though I’m a little late

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.