Question of the Day: Why Are Anti-Gunners Such A-Holes?

Untitled1

TTAG reader PS writes:

Today, as I took a break from work to catch up on the comings and goings on Facebook I happened upon an NPR story about real, actual gun confiscation currently taking place in, drum roll, California. I couldn’t help but join the conversation. In political debates like these one can expect some level of emotionality, hyperbole and childishness coming from both sides. What one generally doesn’t expect, outside of suggesting that maybe blacks oughta be treated like whites in Mississippi in 1960, is pure venemous hatred. You know, the kind where someone says they hope a child dies. That’s what face booker James Morazzini said. About my child . . .


‘Patrick, I hope the next kid to die in a school shooting is the one in your picture. Let the folks like you that are so in favor of letting the mentally ill be armed feel the pain for once…’

I’m all about debate, and I understand that this is an emotional one. I’m also reasonably liberal when it comes to most social topics, so I feel like I’m predisposed to hear out what the other side says even if I’m never going to change my mind.  I have to say, the other side has never seemed so repugnant and vicious to me. This particular comment is under Jack Cameron’s lengthy thread (50+ replies). I beg that you do not anonomize this asshole. He said it in public, so let it be public.

ED: What’s up with anti-gunners anyway? Why are so many so vicious? Or are there just as many overly aggressive pro-gun commentators on the ‘net?

comments

  1. avatar William Burke says:

    You published your kid’s picture in FARCEBOOK, a data-gathering arm of the NSA? What were you THINKING?

  2. A combination having of small pee-pee and spending most of their high school years upside down in a locker with their tighty whities stretched over their heads.

    heyjackass.com

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      If only we could put them back in said locker.

    2. avatar DDay says:

      And liberals. The most intolerance, nasty people are liberals. 90% are mean nasty POS’s.

    3. avatar c4v3man says:

      Considering the anatomy of liberals, having underwear over their heads only makes sense.

    4. avatar Dean Weingarten says:

      A lot of these people come to the anti-freedom side from false assumptions about reality. They may believe that government is inherently good, and the best things come from government.

      They may believe that there is only so much stuff in the world, and to be fair, the government must take from some to give to others.

      They may believe that everybody but them and a few “progressives” are too stupid to figure out anything for themselves.

      These are foundational assumptions about how the world works.

      Adults have a very difficult time changing their foundational asssumptions. Challange anyone’s foundational assumptions with facts and logic, and they will do almost anything rather than change their assumptions about how the world works.

      That is why they get so angry and emotional and call names. We challange their basic assumptions about reality.

      1. avatar Lovin' the South says:

        Exactly.

        Also, there’s a serious strain of elitism (I think born of innate insecurity) in modern liberal thought. They have this weird association with the idea of noblesse oblige because they actually think that they are the nobility. Thus the idea that “the little people” can and will take responsibility for themselves offends their very core sense of being. It’s sad when you think about it.

  3. avatar Smitty says:

    The Anti’s are a bunch of rabid dogs.

    1. avatar JaredFromTampa says:

      That’s being pretty harsh on rabid dogs.

    2. avatar JMS says:

      Not just RE firearms. I have never seen so much hatred and vitriol and actual calls for violence as what comes out of the Left. Celebrations of peoples’ deaths. Wishing death on people (whether from violence or cancer or whatever). Sometimes I see it from conservatives, such as comments on here about people like Feinstein meeting their maker (although I’ve never seen a statement where anybody wanted it to be an intentional death), but it’s so rare in comparison as to be non-existent. It’s funny that the Right is supposed to be the intolerant side, but its actually the one that understands that people have different opinions and that they’re entitled to express them and that disagreement is healthy, etc. Nearly the only calls for censorship, suppression, murder, etc come from the Left.

      1. avatar Lovin' the South says:

        Yeah, it’s usually the people pointing their fingers and making accusations of intolerance and often racism that are the most racist and intolerant.

    3. avatar Hal says:

      It is a constant struggle to remain civil with anti-liberty statists. It’s a struggle I oftentimes lose. Nevermind the MikeyBs and Hmmmmms of the world; Once in a blue moon someone on TTAG writes something like this: “I voted for President Obama twice which was a good decision because he supports and I am a Democrat and I believe in Obamacare but really I am just a big gun owning liberty-lover like yooze guys!”

      I must have encountered statements to that effect about three or four times across the various “I am a Gun Owner” segments a while back. I don’t know what it is, but when someone starts singing that tune… I lose my mind. All civility goes out the window and I have nothing to replace it with except venom. I am not sure if it is the happy hypocrisy or the sheer vapidity of that type of statement. Perhaps it was the fact that many of those same commenters were OUTRAGED that I would have the audacity to resent their poor decisions; poor decisions that were positively, directly and negatively affecting all Americans. Once, a statist named Bruce even said something to the effect of: “well I was trying to be pro-gun but because you guys are mad at me I will now vote anti-gun.” What kind of sh*t is that?

      I am getting angry just writing about it. The problem is that I don’t like spitting venom at them. I take no joy from it and there is no honor in it. It’s a knee-jerk reaction that I simply cannot control. I’ve even been described as a kind guy by others in the real world, so it bothers me that I am so unkind to the statists who troll around here. I just can’t seem to help it. Nothing in this universe angers me more than wannabe do-gooders, statist puppets and knowing collaborators that eagerly elect politicians who erode human rights and civil liberties.

      Mind you, I never said anything along the lines of Mr. Morazzini. That kind of talk is out of control.

      1. avatar Jason702 says:

        Hold on hold on. I voted for Obama twice, I feel I was a good decision. I’m an Independent and I think Obamacare is a good idea. I also own several dozen firearms and support the 2nd amendment which is why I ALSO voted for a republican in the house. Why would you have so much vitriol toward me? Obama was never a big gun grabbing guy before Sandy Hook. Go back and look at his first term. Very lackluster toward gun control. Is giving middle class people subsidies to buy health insurance so repugnant? Oh I know it’s the tax on people that don’t carry it that you’ll probably never have to pay and if its levied against you you don’t have to pay it anyway. Is believing that Obama was a better choic than McCain or Romney really so beyond the pale? You think the country would be any better if they were in charge? I’m at a loss that people who support your right to bear arms but disagree on other issues causes you so much grief. So people are allowed to protect themselves with a gun against a bad guy but if they get cancer and have no health insurance tough luck. People like me are more on your side than you would think.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “I think Obamacare is a good idea”

          This is a joke, right?

        2. avatar Pat says:

          Jason, voting for Barry TWICE makes you insane. How could you have been so blind? Would you vote for him a third time, if you could? If you vote libtard (democrat) again, you will be even crazier. Don’t ever vote democrat AGAIN.

        3. avatar Hal says:

          Well Jason I am going to try and do something that I have been hitherto unable to do; carry on a dialogue without being hateful towards you.

          President Obama had a VERY strong anti-gun record as an Illinois state politician. Also, and maybe I am getting a little crazy here, but I could have SWORN that he mentioned a renewal of the AWB during one of his debates with Mitt Romney. I can’t find that citation however so I could be imagining things. What I am NOT imagining is his Illinois state legislature record, or that I plainly saw the AWB and “common sense” gun control listed as an objective on his own 2012 campaign website. Or that further restrictions on civilian firearm ownership is part of his party’s official platform, of which (as president) he is the head. So, for the sake of civility you might get a pass on the first election but not really, because his record in Illinois was out in the open. You certainly can’t have a pass on the second election. To say “oh, I never DREAMED that President Obama would enact more gun control!” borders on willfully ignorant.

          As for Obamacare, we’ll have to agree to disagree there. Frankly, for you to put that ahead of the second amendment is a barometer of how much you value your liberty. You favor a law that mandates that Americans, all Americans, purchase a product or be fined (because progressive ideas are so good that they have to be mandatory). Since when do Americans tolerate such government power? Perhaps you should ask yourself: if Obamacare is so great, why is our President DESPERATE to delay its implementation until after the 2014 elections? Because he knows that Democrats bought it and now the time has come to own it. He also knows that it will be terrible enough that there may be (r)epublican super majorities in the house and senate come 2014. So, obviously, he is looking out for his party’s survival.

          So let’s recap:

          – Only a truly ignorant person would believe that gun control wasn’t coming during the President’s second term. I don’t even believe YOU thought that, you were just hoping it wouldn’t happen.

          – The way a politician (or anyone for that matter) feels about the RKBA is a barometer for how much they will value ALL liberty. President Obama is a firmly anti-RKBA politician.

          – He crafted a law that mandates that Americans purchase a product or face penalties. Call it a tax all you want, it’s bloody tyranny. Don’t buy the product? Get taxed. Don’t pay the tax? Your property is confiscated. Resist confiscation? Jailed or worse. See how that works?

          – Lo and behold! We now know that this administration has a long train of constitutional abuses under its belt to include flagrant violations of the first, fourth and tenth amendments.

          Now, your dear leader is egging the states on to do what he can’t, destroy the RKBA for their citizenries. The only reason he didn’t do it during his first term is because the only thing he loves more than golf, is power.

        4. avatar Hal says:

          To add something else, Jason:

          You are either pro-liberty or you’re not. For example, I disagree with abortion as a practice but I am completely 100% behind its status as a legal practice provided there are some humane limits placed on how far along the procedure can be performed. I hate people who advocate for the reduction of my rights, but I would never dream of trying to take away their right to free speech.

          It’s all fine and dandy to be the guy who counts to 10 like this: “one, three, four, five, six, seven…” It’s easy to support THOSE amendments (unless you’re a progressive politician). The second amendment is where the rubber meets the road because you have to TRULY believe in and love liberty to support it, not just pay freedom lip service. Sandy hook broke my heart, just as it did yours and everyone else’s. However, it became quite easy to spy the fakers out there who instantly called for citizen disarmament when that shooting happened. For me, that was never even an option, because I love liberty and don’t default to blaming it when bad people do bad things.

          It’s quite possible that without a string of mass shootings the President wouldn’t have ever called for more gun control because, until then, it was politically inconvenient. See how FAST he changed his tune once they did happen? That was because he does NOT have a respect for liberty. He had a premeditated plan in his back pocket and he was ready to pounce once he thought the time was right. He did so gleefully. In a way, he was waiting for tragedy to occur. People like me tried to tell people like you that that was the case prior to TWO elections and you failed to listen. Now your repeated poor decision making has hurt all of us and in much bigger ways than just the RKBA. That is why people like me are frustrated at people like you Jason. But by all means, enjoy your feel-good healthcare now while it is still an idea and not an implemented monster. It will come at the cost of trillions of dollars and a smashed bill of rights. Thanks a lot, you’ve really done us a solid.

        5. avatar Hal says:

          Just noticed on my original comment that word press deleted a line out. Corrected as follows:

          “I voted for President Obama twice which was a good decision because he supports (INSERT PET-PROJECT CIVIL LIBERTY DISTRACTOR ISSUE HERE) and I am a Democrat and I believe in Obamacare but really I am just a big gun owning liberty-lover like yooze guys!”

        6. avatar Charlie Kilo says:

          +10000 Hal

        7. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          Guys, with all the due respect in the world, if you voted for Romney you don’t have much ground to stand on. Rest assured had he been elected he would have changed his tune on gun control the millisecond the Sandy Hook derived public opinion numbers came out. I’m as anti-Barry as they come, and in 2016 I may just swallow my pride and vote for a ‘Pub (I’ve voted straight Libertarian since 2004), but I don’t for a second blame a black, gay or hispanic gun owner for choosing Barry over Mittens anymore than I blame a white blue or white collar guy for voting the other way around.

          Keep in mind the President is often more than a false prophet or lightening rod. The real battle is in Congress, and that means 2014 is a lot more important than 2012 was.

          Also, I beg you all, make this an opportunity to show that we can debate and discuss with civility and logic. We’re not just way better than James Morazzini, we’re way, way, way, way, way, way, way better. Act accordingly.

          My .02

        8. avatar Blue says:

          @BlinkyPete: While Romney is a C- at best regarding 2nd Amendment, he hasn’t had a life long wet dream of disarming Americans and doing away with the Bill of Rights like Barry has done. Furthermore, no way does Rhomboid go out in the Rose Garden and make a shame on the Senate speech with a “Walter-looking dipshit of VP in the background following the vote down last april. Barry is a punk and an F- on a good day regarding the 2nd Amendment and Shotgun Joe Biteme is an F–.

          Rhomboid wouldn’t have been a teflon messiah like Barry either. Not way could any mere mortal survive IRS, Fast & Furious, Benghazi, NSA and running his mouth about “Cops acted stupidly,” “if I had a son, he would look like . . . ” etc.

        9. avatar Hal says:

          Blinky Pete,
          I too am a libertarian… quite a devoted one at that. I agree that Mitt Romney was and is a turd. However, he would have had to dissent from his base and go up against his own party to push for gun control. Because you’re right; the legislature has the power and even a no-convictions hack like Romney wouldn’t take on his own party and dissent from his base. In the same way, I believe many of our current hot-button topics (NSA spying on the public, IRS used as a tool to attack and suppress political opponents, drones, etc) would have been handled very differently. For example, when Tea party (r)epublicans cry out about the NSA and drones, the President can laugh them away because what does he care? Not his party and the message departs from his progressive statist base. Could President Romney do that? Absolutely not, because he would have to act against his own party and insult the voters who put him into office (the same ones who would help fund his re-election).

          So while I agree with you that a hypothetical president Romney would be a lack-luster president, he would be worlds better than the status quo. In fact, Romney even had plans to begin shrinking government. So I DO blame a Black, gay or Hispanic gun owner “for choosing Barry over Mittens.” The implication would be, if they are an informed voter, that they have chosen race or minor pet-project issues over the BILL OF RIGHTS. In other words, they have voted on a single issue that only affects their segment of the population (gays, Hispanics, etc)… the constitution and the American People be damned. What a silly, selfish way to vote for a President. I applaud his work on gay rights but was it worth it? With what we know now, was it really worth handing over our bill of rights as we would a side of beef to a butcher? That is what I would ask such a person.

        10. avatar Rich Grise says:

          What, exactly, are “gay rights?” How are they any different from any other citizen’s Creator-given, Civil, Constitutionally-protected rights?

    4. avatar ChuckN says:

      An apt description. It’s even better when you see an anti-rights wacko
      start foaming at the mouth at the mere mention of certain words or
      names.

      1. avatar dale says:

        I had one of those “foaming at the mouth” incidents not too long ago. The lady WENT OFF on me right in front of a cop who came over, told her I was completely legal and that she needed to move along. After she left he muttered “wow, that was a special kind of idiot” which caused me to make this sign later…

        http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b66/zespectre/zelots.jpg

      2. avatar Hal says:

        I agree completely Rich. Which is why the Government shouldn’t be involved in marriage in the first place. In fact, I personally would lump gay marriage in with civil liberties, not with natural rights. Which makes it even more reprehensible that a person would trade a civil liberty for a host of natural rights that are currently under attack.

  4. avatar DJ9 says:

    Emotion is all they’ve got to fall back on; no data supports their claims. When a person doubles-down on an emotion-only position, this is is the kind of thing that comes out.

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      Exactly. Ad hominem attacks go hand-in-hand with ’emotion-only’ positions.

  5. avatar ensitue says:

    Of course there’s a similarity.
    Who do you think composed the KKK? Democrats
    Who do you think wrote Birth of a nation? Woodrow Wilson
    Who segregated the US military? Woodrow Wilson
    Race hatred, is a form of Class Hatred a staple of Progressive Communists

    1. avatar Ron Burgundy says:

      As my progressive and rabid anti-gun acquaintance says: “They would all be republicans these days”.

      I like to ask the question: “Would you like to refuse Dr. Martin Luther King his concealed carry permit?”

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Progressives tend more to be fascists than communists, including Wilson, but in the long run they are all statist tyrants and so the distinction is slight. (See “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg.)

  6. avatar ChrisTX says:

    Personally, I love arguing with people like this. You push them into a corner with facts until they back off and say “whatever, I’m done”, or spit even more hatred at you, then laugh at the fact that they can’t use logic over pure emotion.

    I try to always make sure I screen cap the arguments to see what the “fair and balanced” side says.

  7. avatar Blehtastic says:

    When you’re susceptible to emotionally based arguments, you’re liable to be an emotional wreck. Gaining control of one’s own character is hard for some people.

  8. avatar Jerry R says:

    Most viscous comments and threats made on the web are made by people whose entire lives are empty of all real human contact. I have no evidence that they all live in their parents basement, but their social circles are rather small… To take any of their comments personally can be aggravating. The only solution is to either not post, or not take these responses as evidence that the poster has nothing real to say worth your time.

    1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

      Very well said.

  9. avatar jwm says:

    I’m not entirely against gun control. A-holes like this are way to mentally ill to have a gun. Or a knife. Or a 9 iron………

    1. avatar Fred says:

      …or free use of their hands.

  10. avatar Stuart says:

    Typical liberal response because they can’t argue an issue without calling someone a swear word or wishing them dead.

  11. avatar James says:

    An over inflated sense of self superiority covering for deeper issues. Emotion is all they act on, so they act incredible childish, vulgar, and primitive when they do not get their way.

    1. avatar ensitue says:

      The same could be said about the SS, never underestimate the power of a Socialist Bureaucrat

  12. avatar SpeleoFool says:

    It’s an Internet thing. A lot of people, while venting emotions at a computer screen, tend to supress the humanity of people who are not directly in front of them.

    It doesn’t take a genius to see how irrational it is to protest “gun violence” by wishing violence on someone else’s child just so they understand how terrible it is. But as long it’s far enough away that you only ever have to read about it then the reality of the human impact of such sentiments doesn’t always sink in.

    Frankly, I saw the exact same ugliness all over these very forums with regards to Israeli soldiers searching a home for a 17-year-old Palestinian rock thrower and the Egyptian military action against protesters. It’s easy to categorically condemn entire groups of people from the safety of the ‘net, but reality is always messier to sort out.

    1. avatar JaredFromTampa says:

      +1, exactly. People say horrible things to one another on the net because they are in essence anonymous. People do not debate each other that way in person, and if they do I imagine it is pretty rare. People for the most part are by nature averse to confrontation. Placing an inanimate object between people, such as a computer screen/avatar/blog handle suddenly makes that other person an inanimate object, no longer a human being with hopes, needs, wants, dreams, etc…

      I think this is pretty similar to road rage. People see the car that didn’t use its blinker, slammed on its brakes or was driving to fvcking slow in the left lane, they get angry at the car and project their dissatisfaction for its occupants onto a non living thing, this is much easier for people and allows them to rationalize their irrational anger. Most drivers do not see or think of the distracted (or whatever) sister/mother/brother/father with a personality, hopes, dreams, desires, etc…that is actually controlling said vehicle. In person people are polite, usually honest and helpful. But take away any semblance of actual interpersonal real time interaction, and people will in essence personify inanimate objects and feel emboldened to say horrible things that they would never say in real life.

      So if this makes any semblance of sense, understand that that person probably doesn’t wish any children to die, or any harm to you. That person doesn’t see you for the human being that you are, all he sees is a name on a computer screen. The internet may be a great thing for humanity, but it is also a terrible thing for human interaction. Only my $.02.

      1. avatar John L. says:

        I agree in principle that the separation and anonymization of being online can have something to do with it. However, that said, we all must take responsibility for our own actions – and that includes statements and postings. There’s a measure of deliberateness and premeditation to posting just about anything that doesn’t necessarily exist in road rage situations.

        Road rage typically starts fast and ends fast. The time between inception (for instance, getting cut off) and action (e.g. cursing out, flipping off, or at the extreme, rear-ending the #!!&#^! who cut you off) can be a matter of seconds. The instances of someone following someone else for many miles are, in my experience from living in CA, much rarer.

        Reading a thread and posting – let alone taking time to check out someone’s Facebook page – is a much more deliberate action. It’s not an instinctive reaction to post you wish someone else – or their child – was dead. It’s thought out at at least some level; it’s deliberate (you have to actively post it). And yet the poster still chose to say something that mean-spirited, hurtful and, let’s face it, evil.

        A major difference between “us” and “them”: I’ll defend anybody’s right to free speech – or to personal self-defense – whether or not I like what they say or find them personally repugnant. But that’s a different discussion.

        1. avatar Semper Why says:

          I’d have to agree here that this is something beyond the Penny Arcade Anonymous Internet F***wad Theory.

          If it were true, then people would have road rage not because they were cut off in traffic, but instead would scream at you because you drive a Mazda.

  13. avatar Jus Bill says:

    I can remember a line I heard once in the 60s: “I’m a pacifist. I’ll kill anyone who says I’m not.” Supposedly intelligent people say the most incredibly stupid things when they’re mad, have no facts to throw at you, and are frustrated about you being right.

    When they were younger they would just wet their pants and throw a tantrum. Today they have the Internet.

  14. avatar Pete says:

    Claim the moral high ground, then post morally repugnant trash publicly. Sounds fair.

  15. avatar Chas says:

    I’ve seen it over and over again. Some of the most rabid and unhinged gun haters actually wish for more innocents to die. Because without dead children, they have absolutely no hope of banning the objects they hate the most: YOUR GUNS.

  16. avatar Jon R. says:

    Why, because their morally and intellectually superior to you, and they love their children more than you love yours, you silly goof.

  17. avatar Roll says:

    You mean to tell me that there are anti-gunners out there that AREN’T A-holes?

    1. avatar Blue says:

      There are and they are 20% or less. They are the ones that can actually be turned around. I have had success with that myself over the years.

  18. avatar ThomasR says:

    At the root of any hate is fear. Fear is at the root of most of the negative emotions.
    The thing that liberal/ progressive fear the most is responsibility. The essence of carrying a weapon is taking responsibility for ones own protection; this throws into question the whole belief system of a liberal/ progressive and their abdicating and giving that responsibility to their substitute parent the state.

    We are symbols of everything that terrifies a liberal/progressive, and their vicious attacks show the level of terror that we generate in their emotionally stunted and immature souls.

    1. avatar ThayneT says:

      Well said.

    2. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      Crike. I’d never seen it worded quite so well.

      Once in answer to someone who questioned why I was not a Christian, instead of simply answering “I’m just nit. If you need more information, ask me why I am what I am” I instead got very slightly preachy.

      In took issue with tat whole absolution bit. I’m not comfortable with a truly ugly, monsterous person getting a free ride if he accepts Jesha ben Merriam on his death bed. It’s way too much like spiritual chapter 13.

      I pay my debts, and if my religious path be Hell-ward then so be it. Noone

    3. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      is going to bail me out, unbalance the who is beholden to whom question and so on.

      In other words, personal responsibility and accountability. I set great store by these things.

      The one axiom by which I live is that anyone claiming to have the One Great Answer probably doesn’t.

      Might be useful arguments when dealing with secular humanist antis.

  19. People that can’t debate with logic and facts resort to third-grade name-calling. Generally.

    1. avatar Blue says:

      That is generally it. Start loosing and start a brawl.

  20. avatar Jason says:

    The anti-gun people want to use force to control you. They’re right. You’re wrong. And you’re too stupid to realize you’re wrong. You’re beneath them and only worthy of their contempt.

    It’s not a “liberal” problem or a lefty problem. You will see similar behavior from any group that wants to use force on others. I’ve seen it from the groups that oppose legalizing drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, and other victimless crimes, from the politicians and their media lackeys promoting the erosion of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments by the security state, and from the chickenhawks who want to bomb Islam into oblivion. It seems to come from the left more, especially these days, probably because they tend to be the busybodies who want to tell everyone else what to do.

    1. avatar Duke of Sharon says:

      whether its a “lefty” problem depends on what your left to right spectrum measures. Mine has the power of the state on the left and the freedom of the individual on the right. By that spectrum, the use of government power to coerce individuals is always left.

      As an aside, regarding gay marriage, I would consider seeking the power of government to redefine a social institution which existed prior to the constitution of the government to be a “lefty” thing to do. The “righty” solution under my spectrum–get government out of the marriage business. Let marriage be a social matter. If you want to say you’re married to x, go for it. Me and my family will define right and wrong on our own and you can do likewise.

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        About marriage, that’s all well and good, except that there are all sorts of legal implications around marriage. An important example is the fact that a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other spouse.

        If you’re in a relationship, and your status is officially “partner” or “boyfriend” or “girlfriend”, then it doesn’t matter if you’ve been together for 25 years, own a house together, have three kids, all that. As far as the law is concerned, you can be compelled to testify against the other person and vice versa. On the other hand, if your status is “spouse”, then it doesn’t matter if you met when you were both blind drunk at the karaoke bar three hours ago, and Korean Elvis just sanctified your union 15 minutes ago, and you’re just now realizing you’re married, you’re protected. The state now has no power to force you to testify against what’s his/her face.

        For the courts to know who gets that protection and who doesn’t, they need a standard, a legal definition, for what is a marriage and what isn’t. That means that government can’t get out of the marriage business.

  21. avatar Blue says:

    I think there are 3 or 4 categories of people that support the Gun Ban Lobby. The first is the naive and ignorant that was brainwashed and raised that way a la Eric “Brainwash Americans Against Guns” Holder. The 2nd group is those that are unstable for whatever reason and don’t trust themselves and just assume everyone is like them. The 3rd group are the Hoplophobs. The 4th group are the professionals with an agenda such as Feinstein, Blomoer, Shoomer, etc. ir ia possible to be in more than one group. The very characteristics that put them in any of these categories favors a$$-holery.

  22. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    Wow. What a bunch of nasty, MyFace-esque comments.

    Why are antis so nasty? Many of ’em aren’t, but the vitriolic ones are more likely to be continually posting and looking for a fight.

    The same applies in politics. The more low-key antis aren’t up on the stage, stridently decrying 2A as obsolete and Constitutionalists as criminals.

    A-holes are generally better at getting noticed because they — wait for it — raise more of a stink.

    I was having a disussion in a bar about religious freedom (yeah, I know: stoopid) and the very red dude three stools down shouts that if I’m so fu¢king tolerant he hopes I’m at the next pressure cooker blast.

    Nice. BTW, I’m not tolerant. Tolerant implies something to tolerate. I don’t tolerate Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, M’umbalah or what have you. I don’t tolerate conservatives, Asians, brown people, Spanish speaking people or whatever. I don’t give a whit, which is a subtle but important distinction.

    Mosquitoes, fleas, tics and so on… Intolerant as all Hell.

    Yeah, I’m a stinkin’ liberal — in the Jeffersonian mold, not that of Feinkenstein or Obama lin Biden.

    Back to the antis, they are wrong and Ill informed at best, then range through delusional and finally to rabid, sociopathic a-holes.

    Some can be helped, some safely ignored and most must be feared and fought. However, many are nice, well-intentioned, neighborly types who’ve drawn the wrong conclusions from bad data.

    But the a-holes are certainly the most noticeable contingent.

    Oh, one last thing: we’re right, and can prove it. They’re not, and cannot.

    Noone likes to be proved wrong, and immature responses can result. Therefor, antis are intrinsically more likely to find themselves backed into a corner and in a terrible snit.

    Well, that and the fact that all gunnies hate kids, ice cream and puppies. We’re real bastards.

  23. avatar Roscoe says:

    IMHO, it’s in the nature of extremists to be shrill, condescending and intolerant of anyone who doesn’t share their world view – regarding any subject on which they have an opinion. Extremists on the left have little courtesy and few manners; they indulge in much vitriol toward anyone they disagree with and it seems to be a hate filled trait common to many lefties, especially the extreme left. They try to drown out all argument by over speaking anyone who dares to disagree with them, and when the fallacy of their arguments is exposed, they resort to personal attacks to demean or demoralize their opponent.
    Conservatives are by their nature, well, conservative in how they carry and conduct themselves, their manners and expressions. Conservative types tend to argue the facts and logic, and aren’t nearly as prone to attacking the speaker as are leftist types. The leftists; they see advantage to attacking the speaker particularly when their lefty arguments are based on socialistic progressive statist dogma or “feelings” rather than logic.

    That’s about as pleasantly as I can put it; I’m holding my tongue.

  24. avatar Blue says:

    You can try commenting on their channel here.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/stopgunviolence/discussion

  25. avatar KCK says:

    What the comment was meant to convey was:
    If you had experience the death of your child at hands of a madman, you would agree with me!
    Problem is that of all the methods a madman could use to kill my child, would the only object that I would try to have laws passes against would be a gun????? Nooooo, maybe I would examine the madman, not his method.
    Why when gun is used, is it the item of fascination and not the perpetrtor. Don’t we have laws against crazy people killing people? Sane people killing people?
    Preaching to the choir I know!

  26. avatar Gregolas says:

    To understand where they come from, how they operate and how they think, I recommend reading Jonah Goldberg’s excellent, ” Liberal Fascism”.

    1. avatar Avid Reader says:

      Ditto. It is an excellent book on the topic.

  27. avatar Duke of Sharon says:

    “Why Are Anti-Gunners Such A-Holes?”

    Most are not anti-gun at all, they are simply anti individual. They have no problem with armed police.

    The reasons most anti-individualists are “A-Holes” is almost tautological. They don’t like people.

    QED

    As I like to say: The thing with which Liberals are liberal, and with which Conservatives are conservative, is the violent, coercive power of the state.

    The violent coercive power of the state is inherently assaholic in nature.

  28. avatar APBTFan says:

    When a person wishes death on any child that person is emotionally invested in their point of view to the point of depravity.

  29. avatar Pete says:

    I was going to say I know some, but then I remembered that they do act like dicks half the time. It seems to be the status quo for some reason. 🙁 I’m sure they aren’t all like that. But the extreme ones probably mostly are.

    It’s the standard tactic: Say a thing, then when it’s refuted, attack the person. Not sure WHY they do that, though I suspect it’s to do with the aforementioned emotionalism that seems to rule in “common sense” debates these days.

  30. avatar Shwiggie says:

    The primary reason for this isn’t the anonymity of the internet. It’s because people like this sincerely believe that those who dare disagree with them are at best uninformed and at worst mentally deficient or even completely subhuman in nature. You see it at work most virulently in the propaganda of totalitarian regimes, but the propensity is quite alive in our own society.

    A ready-made example for this can be found in how those who disagree with the concept of man-made global warming. They are portrayed as “deniers” and “anti-science” for going against “consensus”. Whether one agrees or disagrees, discounting one side as kooks is the antithesis of science, not to mention fairness. All science is based on the analysis of observable fact, not everybody agreeing to agree.

    So now we routinely see advocates of gun control portraying second amendment supporters as brutes who can’t see reason and only care about their own rights. It’s not because they can get away with it (though they can and do), but because they are, in their sight, better than we are. More enlightened, more erudite, more compassionate, and willing to sign away a little freedom for a little safety (while, per Ben Franklin, deserving neither). And it’s easy to get on the same bandwagon on our side.

    It’s all part of the debate…good, bad, and ugly.

    1. avatar JaredFromTampa says:

      I think those are very erudite thoughts, and the climate change analogy holds water. However, as to why the antis are such a$$es on the Internet, I believe it has to do with not confronting the people they are debating face to face.

      I believe that people, like dogs, are eager to please. People do not like conflict as individuals, especially with strangers. I sincerely doubt that a stranger (who isn’t a psychopath) in passing, or even in a controlled public forum would stand up and say “I hope your child is killed.”
      Even if someone disagrees with another person, I’ve usually found that normal people seek a middle ground, they tend to trend towards positions or issues wherein both parties agree.

      I qualified that statement with “normal people” and “not psychopaths.” Some people as you discussed in your example, are not “normal” and there are tons of psychopaths in the world. I’m sure many, but certainly not all of the left leaning sort fall into one or both of those categories.

  31. avatar Rich Grise says:

    When you call those people A-holes, you seriously insult the human anus.

  32. avatar dwb says:

    anti-gunners feel cognitive dissonance. Many also feel that the prohibitionist policies of the drug war have not worked either, its hard to hold two conflicting views like that. They observe no real increase in violence among the states that have expanded concealed carry either. look up the term “effort justification” it fits the need to pass a background check bill, to a T.

    emotional manifestations of cognitive dissonance: anger, frustration, doubt, or rage when confronted with facts that do not conform to deeply held beliefs.

    It’s a sign that the facts are sinking in.

  33. avatar Ed Davis says:

    I expelled a mouthful of coffee across my keyboard at your observation that you are ‘reasonably liberal,” and, therefore, willing to listen to opposing points of view. My experience is that liberals have no interest in understanding any view that does not conform to the statist orthodoxy, and they are armored in their ignorance by an insufferable intellectual arrogance.

    1. avatar dwb says:

      i have a feeling its you not the liberals.

    2. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      Sometimes, a liberal is just a liberal.

  34. avatar Rev. Maurice Pompitous says:

    Question of the Day: Why Are Anti-Gunners Such A-Holes? Let me fix that for you; Why are Anti-Gunners so willing to lie and distort the truth in order to further their agenda? Name calling is part of their playbook, it shouldn’t be in ours. They may be A-holes but that’s not why they do it. Demonize and isolate the enemy is their strategy. They do it with slick propaganda and, yes, name calling. We have our share of A-holes on the pro freedom side, but we have facts and logic that make the name calling unnecessary.

  35. avatar BDub says:

    They feel that using a firearm is such and injustice, that anything short of (in their minds) using a firearm is fair-game. Regardless of what that says about them, it is impossible in their world-view to be more repugnant that someone that would use/own a firearm.

  36. avatar juliesa says:

    I troll the threads on Huffington Post sometimes, and some of the most vicious, violent comments are from people with “Peace” in their nickname or micro-bio. Beware of people with that in their handle.

    1. avatar Shwiggie says:

      Remember “the Ministry of Peace” from “1984”? It’s the same idea.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Yeah, only now it’s called the “Department of Defense.”

        1. avatar Blue says:

          Actually its called DHS . . .

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          I stand corrected. Thanks! 🙂

  37. avatar Indigo88 says:

    Jerks are jerks, no matter their beliefs.

    It’s just that the more extreme their opinion, the more controversial the topic, the more wrong they are, the bigger the jerk they reveal themselves to be.

    As an aside: Do suicides really account for 2/3 of all gun deaths?

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      It’s just a hair short of 70%, actually.

      Of course, that’s if you’re willing to believe the CDC’s own National Vital Statistics Reports. I say that because the figures given by the CDC have always been onerous on a number of things, especially when it comes to crime and violence and the perceived causes of it.

  38. avatar Hannibal says:

    If you are certain enough that you are right, and you believe the cause is important enough, there’s little that you won’t do in pursuit of it…

  39. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    In another forum, I debated a liberal who backhand lobbed this little gem into my court: “Research is showing guns have a ‘priming’ effect. You don’t even have to own one. Just handling a gun or even a replica of a gun alters perceptions, brain chemistry, and behavior.”

    Good grief. That’s what this comes down to, isn’t it? FEAR. Liberals are so afraid of everything and everyone in the world, but mostly they’re afraid of themselves and the decisions they’re forced to make, that they project that fear onto everyone else; with typical, personal, hateful invective.

    Liberals believe that if even *they* can’t be trusted to act responsibly should they step even one itsy, bitsy, tippy-toe into the seductive, destructive penumbra of a firearm’s awesome allure, then *gasp*, what chance do the rest of us have in not going berserk in blind, murderous madness at the behest of our evil inanimate masters?

    These liberals dwell in perpetual self-doubt and self-loathing. Deeply ashamed of themselves and afraid of free will, they ridicule others and aim to restrict their God-given right to self-defense.

    It’s not about crime. It’s not about safety. It’s not about firearms freedoms supporters and it’s not even really about the guns. It’s about liberals themselves: angry and aghast at their abandonment of their own personal responsibilities.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Excellent! Thank you for this.

  40. avatar Ralph says:

    I think a lot of their a-holeness is caused by Low-T, which makes them very cranky. Fortunately, there’s a roll-on for that.

  41. avatar Cubby123 says:

    These guys are stupid asses, don’t waste your breath on them.I tried blogging on Gun Control Now USA and they sent a virus to my email account and destroyed my computer.
    Let these Aholes get shot raped stabbed carjacked gang violenced,and whatever.They don’t and never will “Get It ” If they want their RIGHTS trumped then so be it.Go watch “The Rape of Nanking” where Japanese soldiers bayoneted babies ,raped women and barried elderly alive.Go watch,Gangland ,on Spike TV go re watch all the Nazi concentration camp films. “Ah it will never happen”,ya good luck with that!
    If liberals want to be that STUPID and live in STUPID Liberal’take your rights away’ states ,let them.Who cares ,you can’t fix Stupid.I hate to say it but it will be their families that will be persecuted as they have no PLAN for self defense and they don’t want you to have one either.These IDIOTS want you and yours to get killed and be happy about it.So just exercise your Constitutional Rights ,that they hate and Screw them.
    It is their Constitutional Rights to be Stupid so don’t take that away from them,let them exercise THEIR RIGHTS.

  42. avatar Melquiades says:

    Oh the irony. People claiming liberals are petty, vicious, aggressive and intolerant while… being petty, vicious, aggressive and intolerant.

  43. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Three reasons …

    1 – They believe, or have been taught, that people who disagree are evil, unevolved or otherwise subhuman. Also that it is OK to abuse lesser creatures. Some think they are doing a service protecting the country’s 0purity of essence by keeping the sub humans out or down.

    2 – Dehumanizing their opposition is two-pronged tactic. Someone who is mocked or abused is seen as worth of the abuse. Since they are unworthy, their opinions are likewise tainted. It also distracts & agitates the opposition. Agitated, you become less than admirable and your position suffers. Distracted you don’t get to make your points.

    3 – They are weak in themselves. Having an approved “other” to demonize makes them feel better about their own pathetic selves.

    The game is always to call them out on this BS – hit back twice as hard on any given shenanigan, once. Then make your points, while behaving always admirably, or as close as you can manage to that. They are playing to the galleries with this nonsense, degrading you to make your arguments harder to hear.

    A useful response might be something like:

    “Well, I don’t wish anyone dead. That’s why I am for guns (& BTW, the over all right of self-defense) in the hands of responsible citizens. Guns scare off bad actors, often without a shot. Guns stop bad actors, often without killing them. With a gun I have a better chance of stopping someone who wishes my kid dead.”

  44. avatar jwm says:

    You are what you eat? Maybe it’s that simple about them being A-holes.

  45. avatar ZM 1306 says:

    Hey Rob, if you want to make a trip and need any help breaking some legs with re-bar let me know… wishing that any innocent child dies for whatever reason is asking for some learnin’ I jest…… a bit.

  46. avatar lolinski says:

    They are sick and they dont want to admit it. I know a guy who said that nobody should have guns since HE knows if HE lost HIS job HE would go to work and shoot his former coworkers.

    CAPS-LOCK used for emphasis on pronouns.

  47. avatar Anonymous says:

    They hate guns…that’s how they are. I mean… I hate dogs, but I’m not for pro-confiscation of dogs. I’m certainly not into dog control or dog bans. But that’s how they are. I never try to limit their rights in any topics, but they try to limit mine, and they actually try to provide “reasoning” for it. How hilarious.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email