Quote of the Day: The ‘Truth’ About Guns Edition

967314_4486578057132_1408904954_o

“The truth about guns is that they are designed to kill people and should be controlled and many on the market should be banned. You gun nuts are what is wrong with this country now.” – Clayton Dean Brannon in a comment left on TTAG’s Facebook page

comments

  1. avatar Steve says:

    In the immortal words of The Dude…
    “That is like, your opinion… Man.”

    Clueless utopian theorist head in the sand Ostrich! This is how every Marxist thinks, all problems can be solved through law or societal changes and if we just make one more change we will all live in paradise. Forget the fact that man has been killing man since the beginning of time and will continue to do so.

    1. avatar Craig says:

      It all depends on point of view. To most people on here including myself, the antis are what’s wrong with America.

      1. avatar Taylor TX says:

        Its true, from a certain point of view 🙂

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      No, it’s definitely a bout of chronic dumb-ass. One or more bouts of dumb-ass a week and he may need to seek medication from his physician.

      We don’t get-along by Simon and Garfunkel song, we get-by (governed by) military strategy, everything we do in interaction to each other is governed by Physics and Human Nature [neither of which has or will change in anyone’s lifetime] and the Rules of Armed Conflict. You don’t have to agree, or believe in that idea or sentiment, but it won’t make it not-true, and history is devoid of indicating even the final resting place of those who believe otherwise (loosely paraphrased) TERMS, J.M. Thomas, R., 2012.

    3. avatar JC says:

      Actually Marx advocated for an armed working class even, after a successful proletarian revolution. Its the statists that distorted and perverted his work that called for disarmament, usually just after those with the arms had given them power. I’m no Marxist but I’d rather have them making 2A decisions than the current corporate fascists who do.

    4. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

      This aggression will not stand, man!

    5. avatar Jeremy S says:

      “The truth about guns is that they are designed to kill people…”

      I take total exception with that right off the bat. I have plenty of firearms that were designed for no other purpose than target shooting. They are not suitable for self defense. For instance, an Over/Under designed for shooting clay pigeons that is not supposed to have anything but birdshot fired through it. Or any .22 LR. Even if designed or intended for hunting, it is made for small varmint like squirrels. Totally inaccurate, on any level whatsoever, to claim that it was designed to kill people.

      If you want to jump to that sort of extreme, then you have to say that the truth about your kitchen knives is that they are designed to kill people. Does Clayton feel personally responsible every time somebody is stabbed to death? There are ~1,700 people killed by “knives or cutting instruments” each year in the U.S. according to the FBI. Does he feel like he should get rid of his knives because other people use them as weapons, which was of course one of their original purposes when knives were first ‘invented.’

      Likewise, you have to go back to the origins of any tool you have and realize that vehicles, planes, knives, mobile phones, radar and the ensuing microwave oven, satellites, and an absolutely ridiculous amount of other things originally developed for military use to more efficiently kill people are now in everyday use by people just like Clayton. Just because firearms were originally invented for military purposes doesn’t mean that “guns are designed to kill people” holds ANY bearing today at all, whatsoever.

      1. avatar Skeptical_Realist says:

        It does not matter what your firearms were designed for. What matters is how you use them.

        It does not matter what my firearms were designed for. What matters is how I use them.

    6. avatar bontai Joe says:

      At least he didn’t wish us all dead like some of the anti-gunners.

  2. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    I wonder how his suggested ban will be enforced.

    1. avatar Shire-man says:

      If these people were forced in some way to actually answer any question pertaining to logistics or specifics they’d quit making ridiculously vague statements rooted in emotion.

      Lucky for them, no matter how often they are simply asked “okay, how?” they never ever have to answer.

    2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      With guns.

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        With guns in everyone’s faces while we watch our relatives and children being stun gunned and batoned.

        They will arrive with guns in our faces demanding our guns.

      2. avatar Call Security! says:

        Exactly! And this is an inconvenient truth that anti-gun nuts can’t quite grasp. Or they think it is morally justifiable to eliminate “the other” with overwhelming violence. This puts them in league with some ugly totalitarian characters that they would claim to be against.

      3. avatar Grindstone says:

        But only the RIGHT people will have guns! IE the police! And (as long as you’re not an unarmed black teenager or a dog) we totally have nothing to fear!

    3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      By people other than him, that’s for sure.

    4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Henry,

      I wish to clarify your question. The proper question is,
      … “Who will enforce the ban and how will they enforce it?”

      1. avatar William says:

        By armed agents of the state of course, monopoly of violence and all that.

        1. avatar Jon R. says:

          Yup, even meaner, crazier, and better armed thugs than us, the gun bully gun nuts. The police response to collect all those weapons would make Boston PD’s response to marathon bombers look like a walk in the park.

      2. avatar Henry Bowman says:

        Indeed.

    5. avatar ClayinUT says:

      Unicorns, rainbows and moonbeams.

  3. avatar Sian says:

    Civilian disarmament has facilitated the murder of at least 68,000,000 unarmed civilians by governments and soldiers since 1912, so there’s that. But compared to your feelings and illusions of safety, I’m sure that’s a fair price to pay. After all, you’re an old white man, they’ll probably come for you last anyway.

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      “After all, you’re an old white man, they’ll probably come for you last anyway.”

      dammit . . . . . made me spill my coffee with that good one

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        How many will they send for a young, urban and well-armed man like you and the Diggler family?

        😉

        Probably more than 2…

    2. avatar Taylor TX says:

      Democide is the tune of the 20th century.

      Your comment reminded me of the Martin Neimoller quote “First, they came for the socialists…”

      So maybe he wont be last after all 🙂

      1. avatar libtard says:

        They were, because there are, a different brand of socialist. See JCs comment above at 9:13

    3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      “After all, you’re an old white man, they’ll probably come for you last anyway.”

      Don’t forget fat, the fat, old, white guys will be dead last… Wait… Old, fat, white guy… He supposed to love guns.

      Geez, he can at least have the decency to fit his own stereotype.

    4. avatar doesky2 says:

      That 68M count is way too low. It’s easily in the triple digits.

    5. avatar Excedrine says:

      Upwards of 70,000,000 died in Mao’s China alone. The real low-end count is about 170,000,000, and high-end estimates run upwards of 262,000,000+.

      How do I know this? Watch, in high-definition even, and behold:

      Innocents Betrayed
      http://youtu.be/NN0vkSO9n8Y

      Gun control advocates make me physically sick.

    6. avatar GunGal says:

      “After all, you’re an old white man, they’ll probably come for you last anyway.”
      Actually think they will come for old white people first. Low hanging fruit and all, plus all that life time wealth accumulated to confiscate!

    7. avatar Call Security! says:

      Sweeping gun bans would give rise to an enhanced “stop and frisk” program and would most certainly not effect old white guys first. Progressives need to be careful what they wish for.

      1. avatar Drew says:

        But if frisking for guns is the game and old white guys are considered the bulk of the gun nut culture they must be targeted first. Until they realize old white gun owners make up a minority of old white people and a lot of otherwise content sheeple are forced to suffer the terrible inconvenience of being trod upon. “Take my guns take my land, just don’t take me away from my TV to long”

  4. avatar Doug says:

    Another liberal progressive idiot. Period.

  5. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Looking into his facebook page tells me a lot about this gentleman.
    If he were my neighbor, we would probably not be friends.

    1. avatar TheBear says:

      Yup.

      And I am okay with that. The great thing about being a gun enthusiast is we don’t feel the need to convert everyone to our idealogy.

      Most of us just want to be left alone.

      1. avatar Bear The Grizzly says:

        Well said. It gets old having every person who’s anti gun try and convince me of the error of my ways. Especially since I’m just over here not trying to bother anyone. I state my facts and be on my way. Personally, I don’t care if everyone has a gun or not as long as they don’t try to restrict my rights we could easily be friends.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Yeah, this guy…..he’s not my kind of guy.

  6. avatar James says:

    The unfettered hatred and rage continue. I hope Mr. Brannon gets the counseling he needs so he can get some level of control over his emotions before he does something rash that multiple individuals end up regretting.

  7. avatar the ruester says:

    I think we all realize that what he is really saying is “the truth about gun nuts is I don’t like them and they should be banned and killed by the government.” The seething, impotent hatred that was simmering beneath their skin is now boiling up to the surface. They are lashing out at the world like spoiled teenagers, and it is beautiful. When their tantrum is over and we have sent them to their rooms, we will finally be able to roll up our sleeves and fix all of the damage they did. See you in November, Clayton!

    1. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

      Roger That

  8. avatar 'liljoe says:

    This whole “designed to kill people” meme irks the hell out of me. Designed to deliver a small projectile at great speeds with some level of accuracy yes, designed to kill people, no.

    According to this logic, the new dictionary definitions would be:
    Hammer: designed to kill people with blunt force
    ax: designed to kill people with edged force
    knife: see ax
    rope: designed to strangle people
    pillows: designed to smother people
    pools: designed to drown people
    cars: designed to run over people
    liberals: see pillows

    A tool is a tool, no matter what his Facebook profile might insist

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Sad but true, and funny, too.

  9. avatar ADC USN/Ret says:

    This fight isn’t about freedoms or rights, it is about politicians who want power.

    Anti-gun laws and Gun free zones, KILL

    Politicians that pass these laws, disarming VICTIMS, KILL

    The anti-gun voters, KILL

    i.e. the Voters are the KILLERS by proxy! They kill the children and the victims!

    Change the crowd thinking and win the battle on violence! They have had their chance, now lets show them what real and effective measures can do!

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      It’s violent a$$holes that kill people, but Gun Free Zones give them an edge. The voters who hire anti-freedom statists put our nations and its citizens at a disadvantage, while simultaneously celebrating cowardice and proclaiming victims to be experts.

      Back in the day, you talked to the guy who won the fight for advice.

  10. avatar KarVer says:

    Guns dont kill people the bullets shot might, and guns are kinda like “tools”. And people kill, guns are used for survival, and defense as well as for “crime”. If we did not have guns we might still be British or been Nazis.
    Sometimes to have peace you go to war.
    If we look back at history humans always have utilized weapons and came up with weapons with reach.
    This Mr Clayton should live in England where civilians have less guns or visit places like the middle east….
    Ban Idiots not Guns Merica’

  11. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    I’ll buy that. Guns are designed to kill people. If we could just get rid of all the people in dire need of being killed we could finally get rid of the guns. Now if Clayton can figure out how to get rid of all the criminal thugs, dictators and jihadis we could all live in his utopian gun free paradise, and he could finally get that gold medal from the King of Sweden he so deserves. I’m guessing he’ll be needing a gun to do it though.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      This is one of the best comments that I have read in a long time. You, sir, win the Intertubz for the day!

      1. avatar the ruester says:

        “King of Sweden” sealed the deal.

        1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          In full disclosure I have to admit I kind of borrowed that from Glenn Beck. He was telling a story about a Nobel prize winner being questioned by the TSA in Fargo about the medal in his carry on. Instead of just telling them what it was he just kept letting them ask questions. What’s it made of? Gold. Who gave it to you? The King of Sweden. What did he gave it to you for? For discovering the rate of expansion of the universe.

  12. avatar don-sefd says:

    Why exactly does this post exist? Is Dean a notable politician, activist, or celebrity? Looking through his facebook and after a quick google post, no. It doesn’t seem like it at all. He’s just an individual with his own views. So you slap his picture and a link to his facebook as a personal attack.

    Is nobody outraged by this? You’re one the of the most widely read gun blogs on the internet TTAG, and you should hold yourself to a higher standard. Singling out random people who post on your Facebook is not very professional.

    1. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

      This man posted a comment on a public accessible Facebook page which he knew has many followers.

      He should have no expectation of privacy, and if he doesn’t want people to associate his name/face with his thoughts he shouldn’t have posted them for the world to see.

    2. avatar Mack Bolan says:

      That’s now how this works. That’s not how any of this works.

    3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      He’s a man of no particular importance, true enough. However, his views are shared by millions like him, who vote for politicians who likewise hold this view. It’s the idea, not the individual, here which is to be explored , debated, and refuted. The guy himself is just a blowhard.

    4. avatar the ruester says:

      It is the exact opposite of banning them.

    5. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      @don-sefd – me takes it you were not around when Shannon showed up and well, used her home address to register her for profit, I mean, non-profit business, huh ?

    6. avatar Nick Leghorn says:

      He posted a public comment on our Facebook page with the obvious intent of getting people to read it. I am giving his opinion a larger audience, since it seems to be a common rallying cry among gun control activists.

  13. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    I don’t like old people with drivers licenses. Please turn yours in. You might kill someone.

  14. avatar Ernie says:

    Shitty opinion aside, posting his FB page is pretty classless.

    1. avatar Tex300BLK says:

      Agreed… not sure what productive goal you had with posting this Nick. Luckily the comments so far over here are staying above board from what I have seen, but you are just inviting trouble.

    2. avatar Howdy says:

      He posted on a public forum. His choice and he’s is fully aware of possible outcomes of his choice.

      America. Choice. Consequences.

  15. avatar Bob93 says:

    When evil breaks down his door at 2AM, he will demand to know why his armed neighbor did not immediately come to his rescue or that it took 9 minutes for the police to arrive. When our country slides further toward tyranny, he will demand we protect him. After We The People retake the country back, he will complain that we did not do more to retain our 2nd Amendment rights and the right of the people to rise up against a tyrannical government. Does that sum it up?

    1. avatar Bob93 says:

      Which begs the question…Now that he has publically stated that he hates the 2nd Amendment and those who support it, will we come to his rescue or protect him? As I write this, I am weighing out the pros and cons. Even if I saved him, would he back-stab me, per se, or would he thank me? I am better than him morally (yes, I said it.), which means I am inclined to risk my life to help him, but if I risk my life to help him, I am risking my family too. Anyone have any suggestions?

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        phuck him.

        I have posted this before. I have a rabid anti-gun acquaintance. She goes out of her way to attack gun owners and ask what am I so afraid of, etc., when I carry. Well, as luck would have it, we were at a little get together for a common friend. Downtown. at night. Karma is a b!tch, and she made sure this acquaintance (not a friend) asked me to walk her to her car about 3 or so blks away, in the opposite direction of where I parked. Why? because she was afraid to walk by herself, had had a few drinks (not drunk though), and her car was in a after 5 pm abandoned part of downtown (it was about 9:30 or so). Oh, and she knew I was carrying. I couldn’t stop laughing enough as I walked the other way. Yeah, that was cold. But so was the cold stare she gave me the next time I saw her weeks later. Our common friend told me she was pissed over what I did. I only responded, “she should have called the police. I am not her paid security.”

        I only can imagine the thoughts going thru her head as she trudged alone 🙂

        1. avatar Taylor TX says:

          I was hoping the twist in your story played out how I had imagined, and I was not disappointed.

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          Nice you got to do that. I couldn’t do that to the lady I know that makes snotty cracks about me carrying a gun, tells me I am just itching to shoot someone, etc. She’s my wife. 🙁

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Er, well…

          You married her.

          Upgrade to a newer model with lower miles… 🙂

  16. avatar George says:

    In an anti-gun FB page, he would just be kicked out and banned.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      So exactly this. While I get the point others were making about “Why is this post even a thing?” I do understand Nick’s thought. And George’s point is spot on. This guy offered his opinion, and Nick held it up for ridicule (or at least for comment). Is that better or worse than simply memory-holing it, as would happen if one of us posted on an anti-gun site?

      1. avatar Sian says:

        It’s a side-effect of free speech. Say something stupid, and you may get called out, named, and shamed for it.

  17. avatar Damarius Ilion says:

    No what’s wrong with the country is old bastards like this one are too relaxed! The day comes when you are threatened and some terrorist groups attack, (Like I don’t know ISIS for example!!!) what will he do! Nothing!!! Absolutely nothing!!!! Because he is a foolish old jerk off who’ll sell anybody up the river just to save his own ass! Poor old jerk off!!!!

    1. avatar Bob93 says:

      But, Obama told us ISIS is the JV team, that there is nothing to worry about. Move along. Nothing to see here.

      Unfortunately, it often takes a big war and/or a tyrannical government before people realize that there are bad people in the world, that we are not invincible and tyrants are not our friends. His children and grandchildren will get to fight and die in this next war, and I am 100% certain that his politics will be remembered by them with disgust.

  18. avatar Robert Inguaggiato says:

    Just call me nuts !!!
    Let’s get one thing straight it’s old senile people like you that’s what’s wrong with this country today.

  19. avatar Nick D says:

    I agree with him, guns do need to be controlled. Take me for example. I have controlled my guns so well that, despite their evil design and malevolent nature, they have yet to kill anybody. Mind you, this method of gun control is not for everybody, as it takes a great deal of personal responsibility and will power to accomplish. It’s like taking care of a dog, only instead of crapping on the carpet, it shoots random people. If this is not for you, please pay a professional to take control of your guns for you. I will personally control, care for, and love your guns, for $20/month. Don’t worry, I’m a professional!

  20. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    “The truth about criminals is that they are determined to kill people and should be controlled and many on the street should be incarcerated. You gun-control nuts are what is wrong with this country now.”

    There, FTFY

  21. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Guns are what’s wrong with this country? Uh……MacFly…..MacFly! It’s only because of guns that we even have this country. This country was founded with guns, settled with guns, and defended…repeatedly…with guns (and really big fires) ever since.

    You know what a country without guns in civilian hands looks like? Western Iraq.

    1. avatar Wiregrass says:

      Nailed it right there.

    2. avatar John M. says:

      Iraq has plenty of guns. But it turns out that guns are not magical talismans that turn evil people into good people, but are rather tools that work to the evil or good purposes of those who wield them. If we will not remain virtuous, then we will not remain free. This is a law of nature as certain as water flowing downhill.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        ISIS declared back in the sumer that guns are banned, outside of their own ranks. I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with your point, but I would add to it.

        Guns don’t necessarily turn regular people into good people, either. There must be an innate courage to use them in defense of yourself and your country. Otherwise, they’ll just be aabandoned and recovered by your oppressors, only to be used against you.

  22. avatar Adler says:

    Ignorance is bliss.

  23. avatar JohnF says:

    There will always be extreme opinions like this out there and we tend give them more coverage than they deserve. His Facebook page is a diatribe against religion, Republicans, Fox News and anything remotely right of center.

    We should not concentrate on fringe nuts like him. I’d like to see TTAG articles on how many gun owners are registered to vote, how many actually vote and how much gun owners contribute to and participate in political campaigns that support what we believe in. From what I’ve read, all of that is not where it needs to be. And it is a cop-out to say, “I shouldn’t need to do any of that, 2A and the NRA protects my rights,” or some such nonsense.

    We have a chance to get Republicans in control of the Senate on Nov. 4. The states of MI, NH, AK, AR, CO, GA, IA, KS, KY, LA, NC and SD are the swing states. I distrust government and feel betrayed by the Republicans as much as anyone, but control of both houses would still be huge for gun owners. With Hillary being the front-runner for next president, it could effectively neutralize her on gun issues. Get out the vote.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      + 1,000,000 for JohnF’s comment above!!!!!!!!!!

    2. avatar John Galt says:

      + 1,000,000 Dittos!

      It’s frustrating to encounter so many POTG (for example, at gun shows) who aren’t registered to and don’t vote!

      They piss and moan and whine about politicians, but then do NOTHING to change the situation.

      TTAG really ought to call out all the keyboard ninjas who don’t participate politically or culturally* in defending the 2nd Amendment.

      Maybe a new category like “Sit on My Ass Edition.”

      ——

      *Culturally would mean reaching out to non-gun-owners and inviting them to go shooting, politely persuading fence-sitters regarding gun rights, etc.

  24. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Again, do NOT let gun grabbers frame the debate!

    First and foremost, if firearms were ONLY made for killing, why do policemen and policewomen carry them? Are they all heading out of the police station every day to kill people? Equally important, killing someone in righteous self-defense is legal. Why does Mr. gun grabber condemn legal activity?

    Second, the overall fatality rate of gunshot victims is around 20%. If firearms were only designed to kill, why do 80% of gunshot victims survive? Better yet, if firearms were only designed to kill, then explain why we have not optimized the platform to kill? For reference an optimized killing platform would launch a .22 caliber, 80 grain bullet at around 700 fps … and the bullets would have cyanide in them. In other words the “firearm” would simply be a poison delivery system and optimized for accuracy and rapid follow-up shots.

    In the end firearms are designed to expel a projectile at 700+ feet per second. How someone applies that system is up to the individual. Some possible applications include recreation, hunting, entertainment, self-defense, and compliance (law enforcement). Of course violent monsters can misuse firearms to offensively harm people without justification … the same way that violent monsters can misuse pretty much anything to offensively harm people.

  25. avatar steve clark says:

    Thanks for playing, Clay.

  26. avatar El Mac says:

    Just another Leftist turd with a case of Head In Ass (HIA) disease.

    1. avatar The Trouble with Timbo says:

      I believe the correct diagnosis is Rectal-Cranial Impaction

  27. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    “The truth about guns is that they are designed to kill people and should be controlled and many on the market should be banned. You gun nuts are what is wrong with this country now.” – Clayton Dean Brannon in a comment left on TTAG’s Facebook page”

    And they still kill less people than things not designed to kill people…

  28. avatar JP says:

    I saw a news article on a violent crime and the guy had on a green jacket and flannel shirt. I suppose that now we should have a total and complete ban on green jackets and flannel shirts because they lead to violent crime.All green jackets and flannel shirts should be registered and any not registered should be confiscated immediately as this would certainly reduce violent crimes to zero in short order. Think of the lives saved and children would grow up in a society without crime. Just my opinion..

  29. avatar Parnell says:

    “You gun nuts are what is wrong with this country now.” I see , not The deficit & the debt, Ebola, on-going wars with no end in sight; just gun nuts. With you extricate your head from the nether reaches, look around and then opine again.

  30. avatar MosinTom says:

    Judging by Clayton’s FB page, he is just another clueless, liberal jerkweed.

  31. avatar Fred says:

    I’m getting pretty sick of people that don’t have any hobbies beyond destroying the hobbies of others. Apparently he thinks pushing people down makes him superior, but in reality he’s just trying to pull people down to his level. Most likely he is unwilling to stand up for himself and wants to take away our ability so he won’t feel bad about his own perceived weakness.

  32. avatar The Trouble with Timbo says:

    Guns are just tools. Without them we would have to insert the bullets manually.

  33. avatar GuntotinDem says:

    Im not sure if outting somebody with a dissenting opinion as an “article” constitutes good journalism or contributes to reasoned discussion. its pretty low hanging fruit that everyone can take a swing at.

    We all have various opinions on the expressions of our rights so I’m also sure we dont agree among our selves on all of them.Mobbing on this guy is pretty weak. Its one guys opinion.

    In fact id be willing to bet if we took out the word Gun we’d probably all be in agreement.

    “The truth about nuts is that they are designed to kill people and should be controlled and many on the market should be banned. You nuts are what is wrong with this country now”

    OR maybe we could add the word anti

    The truth about anti-gunners is that they are designed to kill people and should be controlled and many on the market should be banned. You Anti-gun nuts are what is wrong with this country now.

    This is just a guy with no power other than his one vote. We need to keep it cleaner than our opponents if we are make any difference.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Im not sure if outting somebody…

      Under common usage, “outing” refers to publicly disclosing that which someone wishes to remain private. Given that Mr. Dean publicly commented on a public facebook post, using his publicly available facebook account, he has in no way been “outed”.

  34. avatar neiowa says:

    No Clayton. The main problem in this nation is to many drug addled libtard babyboomers and their slaves.

  35. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    I wish I could get that minute I spent on it’s facebook page back. I got lots of information on PeopleSmart. Clayton is clueless for someone filled with so much hate…

  36. avatar Sgt Frank says:

    More people are killed each year with baseball bats than guns. Maybe baseball is whats wrong with America. How does his line of thinking sound when put in perspective. Besides you can’t hunt with a baseball bat.
    30% will fight for the country and the constitution
    30% want the government to take care of them
    30% are pacifists and don’t care one way or the other
    10% are just nuts
    If you look throughout history this % holds up in America, it’s called freedom…..in communist countries 99% of the people vote, that’s fear.

    1. avatar Eat the Old says:

      Where on earth did you find that silly bullshit about “more people are killed with baseball bats”? That is not even close to true.

      Idiots making stupid easily dis-proven claims like that are not doing the gun right cause any favors.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        A modification makes the statement accurate: more people each year are killed by baseball bats* than by [long] guns.

        (*The same is true for hammers, as well.)

        Why so much animosity?

  37. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

    The truth is that guns can be used for good actions, bad actions, and actions that are neither good nor bad, just like cars. And knives. And hands. And drugs. And power tools. And baseball bats. And household chemicals. And many other things.

    To focus entirely on the bad and ignore the good is to ignore reality. It’s also to blame an object for the actions of a person. Cars don’t drive drunk. Knives don’t stab people. Drugs don’t inject themselves. And guns don’t fire themselves (despite media reports of them simply “going off” all the time).

    Disarming the general population means that instead of power being decentralized, it is now concentrated in the hands of a few. Demanding civilian disarmament is a push towards the rule of the strong over the weak – locally, regionally and nationally. It is a push towards a government that can do whatever it wants without consequence. It is anti-civilization.

  38. avatar GryHounnd says:

    I find the absolutist, condescending attitudes on both sides of the gun debate to be what’s wrong with this country. Both sides talk at each other, not to each other.

    1. avatar John Galt says:

      We need to focus our message on the vast sea of people who are in the middle and persuadable.

      The 2nd Amendment crowd needs more calm and rationale spokesperson.

      The first place to start is with the NRA and replace Wayne LaPierre. His bloviating doesn’t help the cause.

      There, I’ve said it.

      1. avatar El Mac says:

        @John Galt, yeah bro, you said it! There is nothing like compromising with the enemy, right?!

        1. avatar John Galt says:

          It’s not about compromise at all.

          It’s about effectively getting the message out to the vast sea of people who are in the middle on gun rights.

          Those who can be persuaded.

          Wayne LaPierre is about as persuasive as Rush Limbaugh.

          The problem with both of them is that they’re only singing to the choir.

        2. avatar El Mac says:

          @John Galt, in case you haven’t noticed (though I suspect you have – nice try at the game though), the NRA has a raft of spokesmen and women…young, diverse, well spoken and street savvy. Wayne ain’t the public face no more.

          But perhaps you are thinking of some sit downs a la The View over a cuppa Chai Tea, scones and such with Whole Lotta Rosie, Hanoi Jane and the like?

      2. avatar Sian says:

        I think after Wayne went off on movies and video games (afer which I was wondering if Wayne and the rest of the NRA’s leadership was just too old and white to be appealing to younger shooters) , cooler minds prevailed. LaPierre isn’t talking so much anymore, Folks like Chris, Gabby, Billy and Colion are being put out as the new faces of the NRA and I think it’s starting to work.

    2. avatar Excedrine says:

      The real difference between the two extremes is that one is absolutely, hopelessly, and incontrovertibly wrong while the other is irrefutably, undeniably, and wholly correct; full-stop and guaran-damn-teed sans reproach.

      Hint: it’s only gun prohibition absolutists that fit the former.

      1. avatar GryHounnd says:

        Excedrine, you just made my case for me, and the Anti-gunners. You and Clayton are the poster children for the real problem. You both are the reason why in the long run any changes that do happen will be worse for one side or the other, and the dumb beat just gets louder and stupider. You have the attitude that if only we had more access to guns, for more people, with fewer restrictions, everything would be great! You both shout give me what i want because I want it, but then again so do three year olds.

        The truth is, on the one hand, all law abiding americans are entitled to guns. On the other hand, no right is absolute, there are all situations that we can acknowledge where some people just don’t need a gun, either because they’re violent criminals or their mental history makes them likely to commit horrendous acts with it,

        But You know what, nothing I say will convince either knucklehead the other side might have one or two legitimate points. So I say go fork yourselves, based on your rhetoric, you seem to enjoy masturbation anyways.

        1. avatar Taylor TX says:

          “On the other hand, no right is absolute”

          Whats that word, unalienable?

        2. avatar GryHounnd says:

          Taylor,
          Inalienable rights are in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. And aside from Life, Librerty, & the Pursuit of Happiness, I outlined EXACTLY how the 2nd amendment is limted in those 2 cases.. Those limitations are hard and fast rules as far as our laws are concerned. Even the most ardent LAW ABIDING 2A proponent acknowldedges them. So either you support giving violent criminals and the mentally insane guns or you’re just being a dick. Either way, my point stands and you’re wrong.

        3. avatar Sian says:

          IMO: If they’re former violent criminals and they aren’t in prison, they’re rehabilitated and should be given every chance to prove they can be decent members of society. If you don’t trust them to do this, then they shouldn’t be out of prison. This is a flaw with our justice system which simply hardens and trains criminals and prepares them for future recidivism.

          Much the same for those with mental illness. if it’s bad enough that they could hurt someone, then they should be in protective custody. If not, then why is there a problem? The big issue with mental health is anyone who tries to get help is stigmatized , and you can lose your rights for trying to do the right thing.

        4. avatar Taylor TX says:

          “Even the most ardent LAW ABIDING 2A proponent acknowldedges them. So either you support giving violent criminals and the mentally insane guns or you’re just being a dick.”

          I would refer to your comment above containing “So I say go fork yourselves, based on your rhetoric, you seem to enjoy masturbation anyways”. I actually want to have some sort of conversation, ideally learning something, preferably sans shit talking if you can help it. I know its easy on the internet and all, but a troll is a troll.

          The issue is who gets to define exactly what those terms mean? Sian put it more eloquently below than I, that there is no universal solution and the stigma is FOREVER.

        5. avatar GryHounnd says:

          As to the criminal element, there are more people out on parole and probation than people who have “just served their time”. So the prohibition is a good one in my opinion, if you have committed a violent crime with a gun or any other weapon for that matter, you should get one “do over” after you have served your time. If you commit any other violent crimes after that, you have forfeited your right to be a participating member of civilized society and should be banned for life. Having said all that, I think that there should be an efficient method for having civil rights restored to convicted criminals who have served their time and are ready to rejoin society. It really is sad that there is not a system that effectivly and easily addresses this now.

          The same can be said for the mental health aspect. Currently it’s a complete mess from top to bottom.

        6. avatar Excedrine says:

          @GryHounnd — No, what I actually did is simply state the facts as they really are. You make our argument for us with this: “So I say go fork yourselves, based on your rhetoric, you seem to enjoy masturbation anyways.” That conclusively proves to all of us that you yourself are not even remotely interested in intelligent conversation to start with. So, no, it’s actually you and Mr. Clayton that are the poster children for what is wrong with this country and that you and Mr. Clayton are in fact the reason why in some parts of the country things will continue to get worse. You and Mr. Clayton simply don’t even have any legitimate points to make.

          It’s not even about wants or “needs” as you and Mr. Clayton falsely claim, which is what you and Mr. Clayton have used to argue for more utterly nonsensical, wholly ineffective, and simply reprehensible and morally repugnant gun control laws that time and again have only ever been conclusively proven by peer-reviewed empirical research to be just that.

          It’s about rights, and they are (in theory anyway) supposed to be protected from government infringement by a Constitution that said government is supposed to be beholden to.

          You and Mister Clayton, on the other hand, are the real petulant toddlers screaming gimme gimme at the top of your lungs. Alas, reason is something that doesn’t quite clearly doesn’t appeal to you and Mr. Clayton.

          I need not even addressed your absurd Arguments from Emotion about violent criminals and the mentally ill, as others have schooled you quite thoroughly on them. Either way, our point stands and you are wrong regardless.

        7. avatar GryHounnd says:

          @Excedrine,

          “You and Mr. Clayton simply don’t even have any legitimate points to make.:
          Don’t lump me in with Mr. Clayton, I have not once in this entire conversation said anything about taking away anyone’s guns. I’ve pointed out that there are in fact LIMITATIONS on the second amendment whether you want to admit it or not. You obviously don’t want to, and therefore you get what we have here, which is obviously the way you want it.

          I treat you like a petulant 3 year old, because that it the way you have acted. You trot out the same old tired points everyone has heard before. My point about masturbation is also valid, as you obviously LOVE to preach to the choir and obviously CAN’T STAND to be contradicted or have someone with a differing view. I’m not being a troll, I’m calling it like it is.

        8. avatar Yellow Devil says:

          “I treat you like a petulant 3 year old, because that it the way you have acted.”

          That may be how you see it, but just reading the comment thread, you aren’t acting much better. Maybe at most a five year old.

        9. avatar J. Zoss says:

          “…in the long run any changes that do happen will be worse for one side or the other…”

          It is no secret that many including myself want things to get “worse” for 2A deniers. It is nothing to be ashamed of, is not part of the problem and should be the goal. Please explain the type of so called long run changes (to firearm laws) that both sides will see as neutral or a benefit. People on the same side can’t even agree on everything.

          If you are going to talk about extremes, the rapid gun grabbers that literally want to infringe on the 2A are the counter to the 2A absolutist that are only trying to follow and repair the law of the land. Some scribbling that simply documents a natural right. One side is correct while the other is absolutely wrong. We don’t have to agree about everything, there isn’t always some acceptable middle ground to every issue.

  39. avatar bryan1980 says:

    I have no problem with the posting of this person’s Facebook profile. He made a comment in a public forum, and his profile is public, so it’s fair game to me.

    Plus, he’s probably the kind of person that would have no problem with the names and addresses of all firearms permit holders in his area being published in the newspaper.

  40. avatar El Mac says:

    @John Galt, yeah man. It’s not like letter writing, emails, faxes, phone calls, news shows, talk radio, blogging, protesting is enough. We’ve just GOT to find another way to communicate. Then, THEN they will understand us.

  41. avatar PeterC says:

    This guy’s Facebook page is a case study in liberal psychopathy.

  42. avatar John says:

    I’ll refrain from name calling and say that people like Clayton are what’s wrong with this country. Blanket statements of “gun nuts” puts the vast majority of firearm owners in false light. It’s like saying that all black people are drug addicted gang members, that every Mexican is an illegal, and that all whites are slave owning racists. Instead of retaliating with vitriol I’ll offer these words of advice to Clayton and anyone else that shares his unfortunate belief:

    YOU are what’s wrong with this country right now. People that misrepresent facts by acting on emotion and fear are doing this country a great disservice. People like you have poisoned our news channels, are spreading lies on social media, and are influencing laws and regulations by voicing opinions on a subject that you clearly do not understand. Do us all a favor and educate yourselves on what “Gun show loopholes” really are before getting up in arms over a subject you haven’t bothered to become familiar with. Please learn the difference between a clip and a magazine. Please learn the difference between an assault weapon and a sporting rifle. Quite frankly, if you can’t tell the difference between those terms or explain to me what the laws already say you have NO business telling the world what’s wrong with firearm owners and laws.

    And please, please please, for the love of God, stop using Hollywood as the primary knowledge base for your understanding of firearms. Here’s a hint….NONE of it is factual. People like you base their entire reality of firearms based on ideas that aren’t even remotely grounded in reality. That’s fine for entertainment but those firearm myths are repeated by an entire group of activists with a voice and they are directly influencing our legislators. Unfortunately even our legislators have proved time and time again that they themselves can’t tell the difference between facts and Hollywood fiction. Our Vice President, congressmen, senators, and local officials are all responsible for writing legislation based on the fundamentally flawed beliefs Hollywood has taught everyone of the past 100 years. Small capacity magazines are legislated because people like you mistakenly believe that people are shot once and immediately die. Stand your ground laws are overturned because of the belief that shooting to wound is a viable option or that self defense is as cut and dry as replicating a few flashy moves. Suppressors are constantly under attack because people believe they play a major role in crime. Microstamping is being pushed because people believe what they see on CSI. Fully automatic weapons are heavily legislated because the movies have told us that they’re used in crimes. NONE of this is true and it all comes from people like you who aren’t able to differentiate between reality and entertainment.

    Every time I hear about another redundant law it reminds me that the people calling for and signing these new redundant laws into legislation have no idea how the laws we already have even work. My personal favorite are the groups screaming for background checks and the closure “Gunshow loopholes.” The people most vocal about closing these loopholes have no idea what that term even means nor do they realize that the very thing they’re screaming to legislate is already a law!

    So there it is Clayton, what’s really wrong with this country…ignorant people. When you, Mom’s Demand Action, and everyone else who is overtly vocal about firearm legislation stops misrepresenting and lying about facts and studies and makes even the slightest hint of an effort to learn about the subject they are most vocal about then I will take what you have to say seriously. Asking people to learn about the thing they want to legislate isn’t too much to ask.

    1. avatar GryHounnd says:

      So @John,

      For the uneducated who might be looking at this thread, please enlighten them and point them to a link that will define the “gun show loophole” and other items so that they can be educated properly. After all, if you want to be superior to your opponents, it helps to be able to politely show them where their mistakes occur. That way you can have an intelligent conversation with them in the future, and if they bring up those terms again, then they just look like a bigger idiot.

      1. avatar John says:

        Pardon the sarcasm but they can find everything they need here:
        http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22gun+show+loophole%22+myths

      2. avatar Excedrine says:

        Except that there isn’t any “gun show loophole” to begin with. It is and always has been only a complete fabrication by gun control advocates designed deliberately to confuse the unknowing and obfuscate the debate. There are no real or valid definitions for the vast majority of the terms they invented, like “assault weapon”, for instance — and that’s because “assault weapons” do not even exist.

        1. avatar GryHounnd says:

          @Excedrine,

          Aaaannd you just displayed your own ignorance. “There are no real or valid definitions for the vast majority of the terms they invented, like “assault weapon”, for instance — and that’s because “assault weapons” do not even exist”

          Sorry to tell you this, but assault weapons DO exist, they are carried by our military and in some cases on swat teams. Examples include fully automatic SG44’s, AK-47’s and M-16’s among others. If you pass the BATF criteria, & can afford it (i.e. if you have a spare $10k lying around), pre-1986 versions are available for purchase from like minded collectors.

          However, if you’re referring to “sporting rifles” then yes, they are mistaken. They are scared of rifles that look an awful lot like those scary military rifles, the key difference is that 1 trigger pull equals 1 bullet fired. Their confusion can be forgiven once, but only once.

          I personally have no problem with a background checks for all of my gun purchases or sales. But that’s because I like protecting myself and my friends and family from pesky litigation. You see, by having record of my sale or purchase, I and my friends can show the authorities that I DIDN’T give a gun to someone who shouldn’t have it. I can SHOW they passed the background check already. If one of the guns I have possessed is ever used in a crime after it’s left my possession, I can prove I or the person I sold it to was responsible enough at the time to own one. It keeps me and them out of jail. I do this simply because you never know what someone else has been up to. Doesn’t matter if it is friend, family, or stranger. But then again, I’m paranoid about what other people have been up to that I don’t know about. I’m not paranoid that Obama is going to come get my guns..

          I’m proud of being seen as a responsible gun owner. I like protecting my friends from lawyers, the question is do you?

        2. avatar John says:

          Excedrine, I see what you’re getting at. There isn’t a gun show loophole in the sense that it has anything to do with gunshows. The problem is that if you ask people what the gunshow loop hole really is 90% of them won’t answer correctly. The same goes for assault weapons.

          GryHounnd, I am all for background checks as well and any time I sell or purchase a gun I go through an FFL for the very reasons you do. At the end of the day it is not legal for me to sell to an unqualified person anyway so a redundant law doesn’t solve the problem.

  43. avatar James Oddie says:

    All right, then what’s right with this country?

  44. avatar SelousX says:

    Clayton has made small-spirited, ignorant comments. Let him be judged by his ignorance and hate.

  45. avatar Burnout says:

    “The truth about Fascists is that they are designed to kill people and should be controlled and many in the country should be imprisoned. You Fascists are what is wrong with this country now.” -Me

  46. avatar Grindstone says:

    For being designed to kill, my guns must be defective. They haven’t killed anyone!

    1. avatar GryHounnd says:

      Could be user error.

  47. avatar Tony says:

    He can have his opinion. I will keep my guns, thank you very much.

  48. avatar Chas says:

    The truth about guns is that they are designed to kill people…

    OK. Sometimes the good guys need to play defense.

  49. avatar Anmut says:

    Come and try to take them you fat piece of dough….

  50. avatar GuyFromV says:

    I think taking offence at the idea that guns are designed to kill is, in itself, a misplaced emotion. Mostly, they are. I don’t see any reason to correct that notion other than “technicality spin” which seems like PC squabble to me.

    1. avatar GryHounnd says:

      Agreed, otherwise our military would send soldiers to war with a feather boa….that way we could tickle the enemy to death.

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