(courtesy irregulartimes.com)

God knows I get into it. Debates with anti-gunners. During a recent back-and-forth, a frothing anti rejected my assertion that gun owners simply want to be left alone. “‘Left alone’ meaning they carry their guns around our families in public under a loose regime of laws and we shut the f*ck up,” he countered. I say yes to the first part – if the “loose regime of laws” means punishment for criminal acts that don’t involve keeping and bearing arms (save brandishing). And no to the second. I and my fellow gun owners do not want to deprive gun control advocates of their First Amendment right to free speech. My interlocutor called B.S. “Ask them if they believe anti-gunners have a right to advocate through every channel you do for tougher gun control laws.” I’m asking. Do you?

131 Responses to Question of the Day: Do You Think Gun Control Advocates Should STFU?

    • ^ That.

      Opponents of the 2nd Amendment have the exact same right to advocate for changes in public policy as I have.

      • Yes, once they have passed the requisite background checks to make sure they are not criminals or mentally ill. And they have obtained all the necessary licenses and training. And the waiting period has passed. Provided that they don’t speak above a certain volume, use words with more than seven letters or more than 100 words in a given month.

    • Isn’t everytime a MDA, MAIG, Everytown, CSGV, Brady, etc etc delete and ban even the most mundane pro-2nd amendments comments, they they are essentially saying the same thing to us?

  1. I have no problem with people having different views than me. The issue I take is they do not wish to follow the law. IE a constitutional ammendment. They have the right to speak out, to feel laws are too loose, to think that government should be able to be more restrictive. However, they do not have the right to bypass/ignore the Constitution. A document, which an eighth grader can understand.

    • We all have the freedom to express “differing views”. We do NOT have the “freedom” to attack someone’s life, liberty, or property. It doesn’t matter whether the attack is physical or verbal.

      Gun grabbers publicly request that government imprison and/or kill us for having firearms even though we have neither attacked nor harmed no one. Not only is that wrong, it is a criminal conspiracy. It is no different than a group publicly asking government to imprison and/or kill us for having rain coats or any other arbitrary criteria.

    • I go back and forth on this. On one hand, I want the 1A to be as absolute as the 2A. On the other, I realize that even as a self-described absolutist there is a line between the 2A and criminal behavior. Pointing a firearm at someone is a perfect example. It’s all fine and good to open carry (well, not if it’s a pistol and you’re in TX) but the moment you start pointing (brandishing?) a firearm you jump firmly into illegal conduct unless you’ve involved in a justifiable use of force scenario. In fact, “illegal conduct” doesn’t adequately describe what a bad idea it is to threaten another person with a firearm; you jump from 2A protections STRAIGHT into a deadly force scenario in which you are the aggressor.

      Perhaps the 1A is no different? At at what point does free speech become treason when advocating for the infringement or elimination of others’ natural, civil, human and constitutional rights? Before those rights are snatched away by an eager government? After? Never? Is there a point where we stand up and say that that’s not okay, ethically or legally?

      I’m not proposing any action. Just wondering.

      • It’s no different than with firearms, the 1st is absolute. No exceptions to that but like firearms you can engage in illegal acts through speech. Conspiracy, accessory, incitement etc. Yelling Fire in a theatre is free speech, doing so and causing the occupants to come to harm in response is a crime.

      • >> Perhaps the 1A is no different? At at what point does free speech become treason

        Since treason is defined very strictly and narrowly in the Constitution, the answer would be – at no point.

  2. What’s wrong with carying guns around “our families in public”?… I love how this anti-gun guy wants to portray guns as non-family friendly along with subtance abuse, pornography, or any other vice you wouldnt want your kids to be around.

    • The typical libtard sees no such “vice”. There is nothing out of bounds that is contrary to traditional Amerian social standards. Smoking tobacco bad, smoking pot good. Real marriage bad, alternative deviant options good. etc etc etc

      • The problem is that the only “vice” that Liberals don’t want their kid to embrace is that of being a Conservative… They pretty much assume that we are the incarnation of evil! I was talking about a local gun shop with a group of friends, and a Liberal friend of mine (I like to debate when I get bored) said “why would you trust a gun dealer”? Basically, a person who runs a business based off of selling guns is automatically a criminal in their eyes… While I do not assume that all Democrats are spiteful, it seems like many of them do things just so they can have another excuse to hate Conservatives

      • Interesting point. Not to say that libs aren’t right about some (very small number of) things, but it’s pretty amazing how far they’ll take the kookiness as a result of their single-minded hatred for conservatives. I’ll continue on that thought train:

        Tobacco bad/pot good

        republican lawmaker giving speech to white supremacy group bad/President attending Jeremiah Wright’s “church” for 20 years good (I’m not defending Scalise he needs to resign, just showcasing the stupid)

        death penalty bad/abortion good

        police bad/lawless thugs destroying property and hurting people good

        rich white conservatives bad/rich white liberals good

        rich white conservatives donating to political campaigns bad/rich white liberals donating to political campaigns good

        reforming entitlement spending as a share of the debt bad/slashing military spending good

        Israel bad/Cuba, Iran good

        Hispanic man killing African American teen in jury-vindicated DGU bad/ambushing two police officers and murdering them good

        Girl being feminine bad/girl being masculine good

        Guy being masculine bad/guy being feminine good

        Solid gun facts and statistics bad/dubious global warming data good

        Gun dealers bad/ATF giving guns to Mexican cartels good

        Any mention of Christianity in public bad/Muslims murdering innocents, oppressing women, throwing homosexuals from a roof good

        facism kills 8 million bad/communism kills 100 million good

        Regular Americans (to include minorities) carrying arms for protection bad/armed bodyguards for rich white liberal elites good

        Police brutality bad/no one being allowed to carry guns except the police good

        imprisoning enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay bad/killing American citizens without a warrant or due process with drones good

        Police arresting violent protesters bad as a violation of free speech/IRS targeting conservative groups good

  3. You either believe in our Constitutionally protected rights or you don’t. Can’t pick and choose and the moment you try take other’s rights away, that’s the moment you don’t believe in any of them anymore.

  4. Not enough info. “Through every channel I do”? Antis seem to have nearly unlimited coverage on TV, in magazines, radio, all manner of access to media outlets, which rational people do not. You have to be a screaming fool, then your interviewer agrees with you and urges you to continue. People who believe in 2A are mocked, belittled, and/or ignored. If the antis were also mocked, belittled and/or ignored, I’d say yes. A one on one discussion, sure. In front of a microphone or a camera, STFU, at least until you know some little bit about the subject, don’t have to make it up.

  5. There’s a difference between wanting them to STFU and legally mandating it. It seems your friend has difficulty recognizing the distinction.

    • There’s a certain chunk of the population that appears to believe that if you advocate for or against something, that automatically means you’re advocating for the government to get involved in the promotion/prohibition of it. I think this group of folks generally believes this themselves and projects it on to all others.

    • Mark & Delmarva Chuck: I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.

      Advocating gun control should be in the same category as advocating slavery for blacks, restrictions on Jews, and other forms of oppression: legally protected speech, but bad and, God-willing, marginalized ideas.

  6. So he thinks that the obviously anti gun press, multiple national anti gun groups, a laundry list of billionaires lined up behind gun control measures, the previous D dominated congress, activist DOJ, etc. etc somehow is outplayed by fundamentally grass roots support of gun owners?

    Just what planet was this person from and what color is the sky in their world?

  7. There’s no right to infringe upon anyone’s freedom of speech. They have the right to advocate for whatever laws they want. Even if they are utterly stupid laws.

    What they need to realize is that they are advocating for government violence against people who have not actually harmed anyone. Carrying a weapon does NOT harm anyone. Neither does possessing a weapon. Or a 30-round magazine. Or a knife. Or a stun gun. Or a baseball bat. Or a baton. Or any other thing that is or could be used as a weapon.

    It cannot be emphasized enough that when you are advocating for any type of government restriction or prohibition of a peaceful act, you are advocating for government violence to be used against people. Regardless of whether that act actually does any harm or not.

    It’s not about the weapon. It’s about the action. Carrying my gun in its holster is a harmless act. The moment I pull it out and point it at someone, I’d better be using it in self-defense, or else I am the aggressor. But until it is actually being used, it’s as harmful as a scarf (which, FWIW, could also be a weapon).

    We respect their freedom of speech. They should respect our right to self-defense.

  8. I believe the anti-gun groups should be allowed to speak. stopping speech like we saw in 2014 by Neo-Victorianism which tried to have Art Censorship, Sex-Trafficking Hysteria , Hate Speech Hoopla (including the new stupid term “triggering”) is just wrong.

    What pro-gun rights supporters should instead pound the table on is the fact they are the ones censoring and not allowing debate. That they want a one sided argument. At some point some smart person will say, “let the other side speak” — and then they will loose. American’s I believe care about fairness and showing them as being unfair and censoring or banning all comments IMHO will bite them in ass by many on the fence.

    By showing them as being a echo chamber and not wanting to engage in a debate, will hurt them.

    No, let them say whatever they want, I do not believe that emotional arguments will win over sensible logic and facts. Forcing them to talk will do them in so we should force them to debate and when they do not, show they are the unreasonable ones.

    IMHO, I would love for them to STFU and go away, but it not going to happen. They are blinded by emotions and we are as gun owners are vested because we are true believers with facts to back us up. There will never be an end to the fight. My only hope is that over time, their numbers will dwindle. Because at least in my state, every time I see anti-gun protestors they look like old retired hippies still trying to fight a cause from the 60s and 70s. I do not see a lot of new young recruits to their cause except wen they drag their children with them for the bloody shirt drama.

      • “Liberals want conservatives to shut up; conservatives want liberals to keep talking.”

        Bingo! America has been swinging to the right lately and this is why. The left’s agenda is being pushed hard in the mainstream media and the more they push, the more American’s are saying, “nope!”. Obama is not only the most successful gun salesman, he has proven to be a one man wrecking ball destroying the Democrat party. So yes, please, talk more!

  9. I don’t want to deprive anyone of any of their natural, civil and Constitutionally-protected rights. Just because I wish you’d stop talking doesn’t mean I want you to be arrested for speaking your mind. Just because I disagree with your opinion doesn’t mean I want it outlawed.

    This is more projection by the Left. When they see something they find undesirable they seek to restrict or ban it–and think everyone else, especially their opponents, think the same way. The reality of the matter is far different. Most of us genuinely want to be left alone to our own devices.

  10. Anti Gun folks already do advocate through every available channel they can, and rightly so, they can shout to the heavens how they feel something is unjust or wrong, as is their right, but if they take action against the Constitution (without amending the Constitution) they are insurrectionists and should be put in prison for treason.

    These people who cry for banning weapons are only hurting themselves. POTG do not want to rely on others for their own protection, so when the state protection fails, POTG will have options, Disarmist will not.

  11. Of course. That’s a yes on both counts. They absolutely have a right to express their views. They also should shut up, and those are not contradictory. They SHOULD shut up, but no one has the authority to force them, nor should anyone have that authority. They should shut up because they are willfully ignorant of most of the information that is pertinent to the issue of gun rights. But that does not mean they should be forced to shut up.

    Saying that someone should do something because it is a good idea is very different from saying someone should be forced to do something because your ideology dictates it.

    I always welcome honest intellectual debate with someone who is anti gun, I’ve just never encountered one who could engage in it.

    Furthermore, preventing anyone from attaining the power to forcibly shut people up is one of the reasons many of us have guns. The fact that we own AR15s is one of the reasons they get to say we shouldn’t be allowed to.

  12. Yes, they have freedom of speech and should use it.

    But it would be nice if they’d actually LEARN SOMETHING about the thing that frightens them so instead of spouting lies, fabrications, and using terminology they don’t understand to try to describe functions the guns they hate simply don’t have…But then they might discover that firearms aren’t so scary once you actually understand what they do and don’t do and how they actually function. And where would that leave them?

    • In recent discussions with the ‘antis’ in my family and circle of friends we finally got down to it … they don’t fear the actual guns themselves as much as they destain and distrust people that want to have them. Yet, when they make their arguments, its always about “the gun” as being evil and not about the scum that uses it to harm maim and kill the innocent.
      They are convinced that those of us who don’t think as they do are the great unwashed, uneducated, backward elements of society. Oh yeah, and by default, racist and homophobic too.

      These people know me some for 50 years.
      Forget that I played music for many years in otherwise all black funk band and have many black friends today.
      Disregard the fact that I have a son-in-law that’s black, one that hispanic and both with whom I have excellent, loving relationships (oddly … both of them agree with me on 2A to the utter bewilderment of the antis)
      However, I’m still a racist because anyone who would own gun has to be a racist. (I don’t get that one)

      Never mind that I had a 23 year career at one of the California State Universities. I’m still uneducated.
      Disregard the fact that in my careers in the education and music industries I had many colleagues and friends who were gay. I still have to be “secretly homophobic” because I’m libertarian/conservative.

      I’ve convinced that Progressive thought is ever much a true religion to these people and is as emotional, irrational, intolerant and unbending as any radical Jihadist.

  13. Advocacy is not the same thing as speech. Advocacy indicates intent to follow speech with action. I object to any advocate of taking away any of my rights–speech, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and/or guns–with equal enthusiasm.

    In other words, they can talk about it all they want as long as they don’t move a finger about it. I have a RKBA. They don’t have to like it, they just have to leave it alone.

  14. They have the same rights as we do. I would draw the line at hate speech, just like the courts do.

    I would also point out that the 2nd amendment is as responsible for all gun related incidents as the 1st amendment is responsible for Ferguson, LA race riots, ect.

    Irresponsibly shooting your mouth or your gun of can have damaging consequences.

    • ” I would draw the line at hate speech, just like the courts do. ”

      Then where do you draw the line with the 2nd Amendment? You seem to be fine with a little infringement on the 1st, so………..

      • I think threating or shooting at someone is an acceptable limitation of second amendment rights. Kind of like speech that advocates violence against a group of people also known as hate speech.

        • Well, I’m pretty sure there are laws on the books about threatening people, or shooting at them, but that isn’t an infringement on the 2A. “Hate Speech” is just another progressive crock of **** created to appease “special” segments of society, and it is an infringement on peoples 1A right to free speech. “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Remember that old saying? Guess what? There are laws in place that will punish those if it goes from words, to sticks and stones.

      • “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

        The above is a general guide that I try to apply to most situations.

        Most limitations on our rights stem from the fact that some people will not, or cannot live their life in a manner that does not trample on other peoples life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. so then we get laws, so many of them useless and ineffective.

        I tend to agree with you, there should be no limitations on our rights, and yet some people do not know how to limit their own selves. Then after rampaging around and wrecking everyone’s toys, the body of people come together and agree such behavior is unacceptable will be punished.

        Then we get another stupid law.

    • >> I would draw the line at hate speech, just like the courts do.

      Hate speech is legal in the USA.

      What’s not legal is speech that leads to an imminent lawless action. “Imminent” is a prerequisite here. You can even say things like “we should kill all Jews!”, and be in the clear so long as there is no likelihood of someone listening to you and then immediately carrying out the threat. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.

  15. Robert, care for a friendly bet? I think you will be accused of orchestrating this unanimous (ok, I haven’t read every single comment) response.

      • Antis are predictable, that’s all I’m saying. I bet if you took one if the more rabid antis, strapped them to a chair Clockwork Orange style, and forced then to listen to rational arguments, logically defeating everything they say, presenting the statistics that back up the pro gun view and demonstrating how CSGV and MDA starts are fabricated, that you could cause them to have an aneurysm from the sheer stress of holding onto their beliefs against all reason.

  16. If they can have kids arested for talking or posting stupid kid stuff or making a gun with fingers I first grade then they should also be punished for saying or posting stupid sh*t about guns and wanting to violate the second. YES THROUGH THIER STUPID BUTTS IN JAIL JUST LIKE THEY DO TO OTHERS. THEN MAYBE THEY WILL BE AS SMART AS A FITH GRADER.

  17. I find it ironic that virtually all Americans would stand up to any and all threats, either real or imagined, at the very thought of suggesting a limit to their 1stA right.. yet many have no problem willfully and freely allowing their 2A rights to be taken away…aren’t Most wars, fights, disagreements started because of the unchecked tongue? Yet it’s unfathomable to even think that government would attempt to limit or license our right to go off half cocked at the mouth..

  18. People rarely want to censor speech unless they think it is outrageous. So free speech means little unless it is freedom for the thought you hate. Of course differing views must enjoy the same protection.

  19. No, let them talk. Most of the time when they argue they have/are:
    a. flawed/faulty logic
    b. double standards.
    c. No reputable sources to cite/confirm
    d. sound like rabid hateful candidates for mental institutions.

    Let them, I say; It helps the 2A cause more than anything.

  20. To hell with the gun-grabbers, and all other liberals as well.

    They stopped dealing with facts and “playing fair” a long time ago. The last thing they want is an honest debate. I’m not going to fight by the Marquis of Queensberry rules if they aren’t.

    They are going to get held to their own rules now. They are going to get called out and mocked when they lie or display ignorance. They are going to get doxxed and counter-protested whenever possible. And I will use any means at my disposal to advance the cause of 2A rights.

    Broken down on the side of the road? Better not have a left-wing bumper sticker, or I will drive right past you (if I don’t stop to tell you why I’m not helping you). And I am carefully evaluating my sheepdog instincts to ensure I don’t risk my neck to defend someone who doesn’t deserve it.

    They made their bed, and they can lay down in it.

    • It’s the same bed for all of us. You can have your petty revenge, but understand that it’ll be your bed next.

      • INT19H: “It’s the same bed for all of us. You can have your petty revenge, but understand that it’ll be your bed next.”

        Like they aren’t already doing it to us? Wake up and smell what you’re shoveling.

        If you want to lay there and bite the pillow in silence in the hope that the liberals might take pity on you and use some KY when they drill your keister, that’s your choice.

        • What you’re saying is that, if your housemate is trying to burn down your shared house, you’re going to help him do so to “show him”. Not a smart strategy.

          Oh, and I am a liberal. Just a pro-gun one.

  21. Ask him how he thinks these comments would read on an MDA article titled “should pro gunners STFU?”. Then make fun of his cock.

  22. No, we cannot tolerate the violation of any right used for general discussion. Only if some demonstrable harm is done by the abusive exercise of a right should any sanctions or prohibitions be imposed.

    OTOH, if you think about it the anti-gun people consistently claim the exercise of our Second Amendment Right to keep and bear Arms creates demonstrable harm to people. However, it also saves lives, and it appears more lives are saved by RKBA than taken. The anti’s focus on “selected facts”, which is an acceptable tactic in debate, but risky when full disclosure of all pertinent facts is employed. We need to insure reliable data is generated and distributed that shows ALL the pertinent facts related to Second Amendment Rights.

  23. I just use their own argument against them and tell them that the First Amendment only covers the forms of communication available when the Constitution was written. If it can’t be heard by people in person, written in a letter by ink and quill, or written with the Gutenburg printing press, then it’s not protected speech.

  24. I would prefer them to STFU about gun control and go advocate for the Fourth Amendment and our privacy rights, which is under a far heavier seige than the Second Amendment. In my opinion, it’s a far more important fight.

    • It’s hard for them to battle for the 4th while simultaneously pushing for registries and publishing permit holders names in papers.

      As was said up here before to much glory by somebody greater than me “statist gonna state.”

  25. In general I will agree that they have the right to speech. However, promoting infringement of other person rights may be hate speech. And it comes down to allowing that or not.
    I wonder of they will allow me to speak about denying the right to vote for certain classes of citizens. How will they call that?
    Note: I’m not advocating for restricting the right to vote. It is used here just for comparison purposes.

    • >> However, promoting infringement of other person rights may be hate speech.

      And hate speech is legal in the USA. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.

      Thing is, as soon as you start making ideas (expessed as speech or otherwise) illegal in and of themselves, you get into the whole thought police business. Once that precedent is set, it’s only a matter of time before it’s used more and more expansively to cover all kinds of political or otherwise “dangerous” speech.

      Imagine if campaigning against the 16th or 17th Amendment would be criminal “hate speech”. Do you like the sound of that?

  26. Deleted my first reply because I didn’t actually answer the question: “Ask them if they believe anti-gunners have a right to advocate through every channel you do for tougher gun control laws.”
    – Yes, they have the right. Just as we have the right to advocate against the same.

    As to the title question, “Do You Think Gun Control Advocates Should STFU?”
    – Oh, how I wish they would! They advocate for something about which they have little or no knowledge! How does that make sense? It doesn’t! And they do not understand this! The anti-gun nuts would never lobby for stricter laws about brain surgery or the the construction of microwave ovens or the pressure limitations on tanks used to store pressurized propane. They would leave that type of stuff for the experts! So STFU about guns. Besides, we have a fine law regarding guns already. We call it the Second Amendment around here. And we have plenty of laws regarding crimes committed with guns. Let’s try enforcing them instead of limiting the law abiding POTG.

    • Sounds good on paper, and many likely agree…except for one serious problem; much of the Bill of Rights has been gutted and the 2nd Amendment really didn’t do a whole lot to prevent it from happening.

      • Thats on us. Laws and Amendments have no power on their own. They are simple words and paper. We need to enforce and express them. I agree we have failed to do so in many areas. However it isnt all bleak. We’ve had victories too.

  27. The whole thing is a canard. If the giant government apparatus isn’t there to petition for “tougher gun laws” then there’s really no need to do what they do, save for have an opinion…

    The problem, once again, is not owning/carrying guns vs. talking about owning guns it’s the problem of believing that a giant government apparatus is our big nanny or savior and they should “do something”…

  28. Anyone who thinks that problems caused by increased government can only be fixed by further increasing the government can’t be reasoned with. They can’t even apply to their thought processes any amount of reason or logic. Sure they can come to this website and share their anti-constitutional sentiments. Can we go to their media outlets and share our pro- constitutional sentiments though? Probably not. Do I want to hear them and their constitutional degredational rhetoric? Not really. Not because I don’t believe they don’t have the right to express such sentiments, because they do. I would much rather bear witness to and engage in an intelligent debate. In order for that to occur though there would have to be a heavy use of logic, reason and factual evidence from both parties. Their camp is lacking in all of this criteria. No, I don’t want to hear what they have to say because it is factually and intellectually flawed, based on parroting whatever talking head they idolize says and emotional immaturity.

    As another reader stated you can’t cry about people supposedly not endorsing your use of your constitutional rights when you’re trying to limit our ability to utilize the same rights.

    But hey, you know how it is. Statists got to State.

  29. The gun guys have always welcomed a good debate. But what the antis want is not a debate but to lecture us. To have us and the public accept their false premiss on which their arguments is based as irrefutable fact.

    Then there are the lies and distortions and such. Their lack of any real grassroots movement and this notion that their movement is somehow equal to or better than ours. When we have membership driven organizations and such.

    Their lack of decency often drives gun guys to wanting them to just sit down and shut up, because they haven’t added anything new to the conversation or debate since Stockton.

    Look at this last week where Shanny got her tighty whity’s in a knot because NRA blocked her twitter feed. But they routinely block gun guys, and delete pro-gun comments on their blogs or FB pages.

    Do we want to be left alone? Yea. But you can’t continue a debate with someone who will not recognize any sort of ground rules, like we are talking about a constitutional right here and therefore any restrictions must meet some threshold higher than your feelings and paranoia.

    They think they can impugn the reputation and image of gun owners and we should accept it, then turn around and decry any blow back on them.

    At some level it is maddening the things they say. But sometimes they are the best things we have going as they make such outlandish claims they backfire.

    Let them keep talking and show them to be the craven bottom-feeders that they are. While we take the high road and out work them, out think them and beat them in the public arena, the judicial arena and legislative arena.

      • INT19H: “Everything is up for debate. Debate is just speech. Speech does not and cannot violate rights.”

        Where do you get this drivel from?

        • There is this document called the Bill of Rights. Look it up, it’s not that long and pretty easy to read. I recommend that everyone does it.

          After that, go and read some Thomas Jefferson. The guy’s writing is really good.

  30. “Ask them if they believe anti-gunners have a right to advocate through every channel you do for tougher gun control laws.”

    Yes, yes they do. And they already do, and then-some. Anti-gunners have the ADVANTAGE in terms of both media coverage and dollars. If they don’t believe you, ask them how much money Bloomberg and the tech billionaires put in I-594. The latter is rather important in light of Citizen’s United, so I’m not exactly sure how he/she perceives being somehow slighted.

  31. IF the sole aim of gun control advocates is to reduce crime, and
    IF the sole target of gun control legislation is criminals and criminal activity (not creating criminals with new gun control legislation), and
    IF any proposed legislation is free from restrictive wording or intent to restrict law abiding, constitutionally protected, firearm ownership/use, and
    IF gun control advocates are willing to reexamine the existing laws that would otherwise cover their premise and agree to discuss repealing nonsense laws that do nothing to prevent crime and only serve to restrict or infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners, then

    Gun Control Advocates are good to go.

    IF NOT, STFU….

  32. Yes, they have that right, I think a few caveats are in order though. First off reciprocity is only fair, free speech should be open on any forum, unless of course it devolves into name calling, obscenities, and threats, which it often does, oddly enough. Second, the first amendment was written in a time when the printed page was about as mass media as you could get, the advent of television and internet allow people with money to make more or less unlimited use of these technologies to pound their message home. I don’t know how you would do it, but there needs to be some way of showing the lies, half truths, and insulting stereotyping used in these messages. Also, I think that any group, or advertisement that receives funds no matter how indirectly from a wealthy person or group with an agenda should be required to publicly state the source of their funding. You won’t see the NRA putting up ads without indentifying themselves in great big letters no?

  33. I haven’t seen a pro-gun vid yet with “comments disabled”. I’ve seen one anti-gun vid that did not have comments disabled–but it was a due to the poster’s inexperience and she disabled the comments when she re-posted it. I find it laughable that antis would accuse ANYONE of harboring anti-free speech sentiments.

    • It’s been my experience that if someone is in favor of curtailing one of your rights, odds are good they’re in favor of curtailing others as well. If they want to strip your Second Amendment rights, they don’t have a problem with stepping on your Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment rights. The First Amendment doesn’t mean much to them either. They want it so they can spew whatever filth they like, but they want “hate speech” outlawed, defining hate speech as “anything that runs contrary to what I think”.

  34. Their right to free speech ends with them being micromanaging nanny state jerks who petition the government to take my rights away.

    So yes and turnabout’s fair play.

  35. what tickles me is the fact that some of the people here saying, “let the antis talk all they like and thereby self-destruct.” are some of the same that criticize this blog for “giving the antis more exposure” by reporting on the nonsense they say. har.

  36. No, I don’t – barely.

    This is not about the First Amendment, as I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be *able* to shut them up, even though their nattering causes death and destruction by means of interfering with peoples’ access to (and/or consideration of) certain means of self-defence.

    Rather, their use of their Natural, Civil and Constitutionally Guaranteed right to Free Speech also does some good as it points out stupiditious and dangerous conditions – untrained users and so on – which might otherwise receive little attention.

    Also, one thing for which they advocate is stiffer penalties for use of guns in crime; of this I approve. A gun is a serious force multiplier, and therefore a “violent crime multiplier” as well. The more violent an offence, the more heavily it should be punished.

    Do I believe that they are generally wrong and wish they’d get some damned sense, yes; as to whether they should shut up absolutely, though, I must hold my nose and squeak “No.”

  37. The grabbers droning on about gun control are like taking a long car trip is a kid that keeps asking “Are we there yet?” over and over. They are down for the struggle and will untiringly continue their drum beat for fascist control over our lives. My question is when after all their best efforts of lies, fraud, and bribery have failed, will the question be put to rest, so to speak.

  38. They should be censored and publicly shamed and seperated from decent society. They are, after all, not arguing for gun control. Just like Bull Connors with his dogs and fire hoses they are arguing for the trampling of freedom and rights.

    I live in CA. Their so called freedom of speech has led directly to my being restricted to second class citizenship.

    They are in effect arguing for a return to slavery. Should they be allowed too when we have ample evidence, proof, that their argument has been moved past rhetoric and into reality for millions of formerly free Americans?

    • +1. Well said, jwm.

      I am circling back here, as a result of RFs link back, from his “Gun Control Advocates are Cowards article of Jan 2nd.

      Here’s my question for anyone identifying as liberal or progressive: do you understand what jwm is saying?
      Do you understand the reference to Bull Conner?

      Are you aware of the repression of Second Amendment rights in California, which has existed for decades, as in the actual specific, documented (read the Peruta v Gore decision in the 9th CA) real- world situation where only a relative few have the natural, God given, inalienable right to armed self-defense, as approved by agents of the State of California, while an entire other, second-class of otherwise law abiding citizens do not have those same rights to self-defense.

      To those gun-control advocates: How do you justify that? How can you support the Brady organization, and the CSGV amici to support CA AG Kamala Harris blatant abuse of her position and the 9ths legal process, when she specifically declined to be involved, before?

      I dont see “real” gun control advocates come to TTAG to debate with facts. Well, Dan Baum once did, author of Gun Guys, did come here before and after his book was published. And the backstory is he has had a change of heart, on some of his convictions, seeing how the Obama admin, and some gun grabbers have colluded in a dishonest fashion, to influence the debate.

      So here’s my challenge. Where are you supposedly principaled advocates, for the children. Jenifer Macias, the moderator of Joe Noceras antigun blog at NYT. You seem well spoken, at least in your part time gig advocating for the NY chapter of Moms Demading Action.

      Why are the pro freedom supporters so willing to engage, on the facts, but anti-gun advocates unwilling to debate?

      The door is wide open, come on in.

      • >> Here’s my question for anyone identifying as liberal or progressive

        You might want to narrow that a bit. I identify as liberal/progressive, but I’m not a gun control advocate.

  39. The Second Amendment does not give the right to keep and bear arms. It recognizes the natural right to self-protection and that the government won’t restrict it. The same goes for the First Amendment: it simply recognizes that human beings do not have to be told what or how to think, and that government won’t restrict it.

    Now, from this perspective, if you advocate restriction of either one, you’re rebelling not only against the Constitution and your fellow man, but against nature and nature’s God. Now, just who’s in the wrong?

  40. The whole point of bearing arms is to protect the infringement of every other right, including the rights of those who wish to protest against my right to bear arms. Not only do they have the right to express themselves in any manner that I do, but furthermore I am willing to resist those who would deny them that freedom of expression.

  41. “Ask them if they believe anti-gunners have a right to advocate through every channel you do for tougher gun control laws.” I’m asking. Do you?

    Everyone has the right to free speech and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. End of story. I don’t think free speech should ever change and I would still disagree if a supermajority in congress voted to change it.

    I disagree with Farago’s debater’s endeavor. How can that person pick and choose which rights they like and which rights they don’t? How can they make attempts to force their opinion on us because they don’t own guns and aren’t interested in them? Why do they think their opinion is greater than ours? And most importantly, how possibly do they think that their opinion matters more or less based on the number of their supporters vs. ours? This is exactly why we have a republic not a democracy.

    Sure. Officials are elected “democratically” but laws are determined in congress by means of representatives and most importantly, the bill of rights, which protects everyone’s natural rights, were setup in such a way that it was very difficult to modify them, a supermajority vote was required, and they restricted government action. So from the start – this nation was a republic based on secured freedoms.

    Why has intolerance grown to such levels that voters everywhere no longer focus on philosophical questions but rather fight with votes on whatever benefits them the most while disregarding the freedoms they choose to revoke from their opposing parties. As time has progressed we have sprinkled millions of laws all over everyone completely due to our own selfishness rather than asking the question of whether or not freedom was the better choice.

    I thought the point of all this was for the pursuit of happiness. Everyone likes to do certain things that they like. And what is wrong with that as long as they aren’t forcing it on someone else? We have to draw a line between what we want and the freedoms of all. Maybe we don’t like it that our neighbor smokes weed, brews beer, or distills alcohol. But then again, it’s his body right? It’s not ours. He keeps it to himself and doesn’t bother anyone else with it. Maybe I don’t like it there is that guy in my community that owns some firearms or reloads cartridges in his garage. He has never hurt anyone but that doesn’t matter right – what is good for me is what matters right? Should I vote to take away his pursuit of happiness because my opinion does not align with his?? These concepts are not supportive of a free country in my opinion. Tolerance allows freedom.

    Somehow, over time, people who don’t care about rights, decided that the best way to stop criminals is to control the ownership, possession, and transference of guns. In doing so, they have shifted focus from the punishment of criminals for harmful actions, to the punishment of gun owners for unlawful actions and placed criminals and gun owners in the same boat.

    It used to be if you killed someone you were punished harshly (regardless of means). And people were innocent until proven guilty. But now that you are a gun owner, here are a million tiny rules for you to follow or you are a criminal, regardless that you didn’t hurt anyone or that no one even knew about it. Given the current situation, I would call it an infringement on 2A rights.

    It is also and already against the law to kill people (with a gun or otherwise), yet gun control doesn’t seek to make it against the law to kill people with a gun, instead it seeks to make all these minute restrictions on ownership, use, possession, acquisition. If we were to extend these on the freedom of religion the equivalent would be laws requiring you can only go to church at certain times, worship on certain days, and pay fees according to who/what you are worshiping. Register yourself as a certain religion, etc. We don’t put restrictions on speech and press for felons released from prison. They can say and print whatever they want; they may be prosecuted for it. We don’t put restrictions on who owns a printer, or who can say certain words or phrases. We don’t register printers or perform background checks on people who are buying them. Those would be attempts to prevent a crime before it happens yes? However those restrictions are placed on guns owners, despite the wording of the second amendment. Gun owners are frequently criminalized by the millions of gun laws requiring meaningless small and minor restrictions on possession, use, acquisition, and transfer of this so called “right” which there is no equal comparison to any restrictions on the first amendment. There are laws that punish people for harming others with the 1st amendment, but there are no laws that attempt to prevent people from saying or writing certain things. Yet this is extended to the 2nd amendment and is somehow acceptable?

    One could argue that a right is never absolute. All rights have some restrictions. The right to vote is limited to citizens, for example. Free speech rights do not mean you can’t be prosecuted for what you say.

    And that is correct, but you do have the right and ability to say it or print it. You don’t have an instrument attached to your face censoring your words or your computers or keeping your mouth shut or disabling your printers. There aren’t laws trying to prevent you from saying certain things. There is only the punishment that would be inflicted if one broke those laws, and they are innocent until they are proven guilty. An extension of this to the 2nd amendment is that it is against the law to shoot people with guns. So yes – there are restrictions on it already (those restrictions that violate the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others).

    There are laws (a great many laws) that restrict gun ownership, use, and supposedly safety. Everyone supposedly has this right, but then there are all these rules in place (gun control) that attempt to keep guns out of the hands of supposedly “dangerous” people, at the cost of a great deal of bureaucratic red tape documentation and fees and a great many laws (victimless laws) that a great many people don’t know about that incriminates them when they have done no harm nor intend to. So unlike restrictions on the freedom of speech which punishes people for a crime after a crime is committed, these gun control laws make criminals out of people that haven’t hurt anyone nor intent to. Rather than keep it simple like the rights of speech and press for example, gun control attempts to incriminate people before they hurt anyone, and the accountability is transferred from criminals (with intent) to law abiding gun owners (with no intent).

    Examples:
    A guy buys a cheap chinese SKS from an importer/dealer. He doesn’t like the crusty gross cosmoline coated cheap chinese wood stock on it and buys a glass impregnated polymer stock online with a pistol grip and installs it. Suddenly, he is a criminal (even though he hurt no one), because he installed that stock.

    A person damages the end of their rifle by creating an indentation on the crown – thus affecting its accuracy. That person mics the bore at the muzzle and notices that it has opened up a bit over time. They cut the barrel back an inch and re-crown it. The accuracy is greatly improved – but now that person is a criminal because the barrel is shorter than the legal limit (Federal law).

    A guy sells his neighbor a rifle because his neighbor has coyote problems on his ranch. The guy is now a criminal because he didn’t undergo a background check (required in the state of WA). Even though no one was harmed – the accountability of a future criminal action has been transferred to the current lawful gun owner with a law of this kind creating criminals with no intent whatsoever.

    There are no restrictions of this kind on the first amendment. You are free to say anything you want at any time. Print anything you want at any time. If your words infringe on the rights of others or otherwise harms them by means of libel, slander, or incite a panic that produces harm to others, you will be charged and imprisoned.

    However, the same does not apply to guns. It used to be – if you shot and killed someone, you were harshly sentenced. You committed a crime that otherwise infringed on the rights of others and were punished for that crime (harshly). Now, all these rules (where the equivalent don’t exist on speech and press) make criminals out of gun owners when they haven’t hurt anyone nor intent to. All felons can’t own guns (there are felonies in some states for speeding in a car, or fraud, money laundering, etc) and these people can never own a gun again? Own a magazine over 7 rounds in size? Criminal (NYC). Own a magazine over 15 rounds in size? Criminal (State of CO). Give a rifle to your neighbor? Criminal (State of WA, CT, MA).

    The equivalent restrictions on the 1st amendment would be banning certain words or phrases. Passing certain messages or printed material with certain statements, and the restrictions would be after conviction having your vocal cords surgically removed or restricting you from owning a printer. There is really no comparison on this matter.

    So to listen to Farago’s opposing debater complain that we don’t support rights like the first amendment is hilarious. Here this person is going on about first amendment rights when they are so hasty to cast away their second amendment rights. This person is free to say anything they want any time. They may get prosecuted for what they say – but they CAN say it. The punishment for the crime is a deterrent for them to not say certain things (like fire in a theater when there is no fire). But the answer always seems to be more 2nd amendment regulation. There are already a ridiculous number of laws governing the second amendment. If we extend these comparably to the 1st amendment, then certain words or phrases spoken allowed or printed could be regulated. The amount of paper and speed at which your printer prints could be regulated, the opinions you print and say could be regulated (regardless if they were slander/libel). Certain words could be banned from the language. But surely this anti-2A rights debater does not mean that your right to free press and speech is being infringed upon – Right?

    The bottom line is I like freedom. I like Farago’s debater to have freedom too. But it sure would be nice if Farago’s debater would have respect for my pursuit of happiness and extend that same tolerance and freedom to me. After all, I am not trying to put a gun in their hands. It is they who are trying to take a gun out of mine on the basis of their opinion.

  42. its kind of a oxy-moron. they are using their right to try and take my right away. and yes its how this country works.

  43. I agree they have 1st amendment rights. But freedom of speech doesn’t mean free of consequences, and using distortions and outright lies to accomplish their goals should come with consequences, for them.

    • >> But freedom of speech doesn’t mean free of consequences

      Freedom of speech does mean free of consequences “from the government”. Otherwise you could say that even North Korea has free speech – sure, you’ll end up spending the rest of your (fairly short) life in a labor camp, but you were free to say whatever you did, didn’t you?

  44. I’d love it if they’d just STFU. They don’t know what they’re talking about. They don’t want the facts. They lie, deny, and distort on a daily basis. They manipulate the well-meaning and exploit the emotion-laden at every turn, all to tout their politics and sate their smugness. Their net contribution to public discourse is ideation pollution.

    That said, it’s their freedom of speech to be as big an ass as they want to be. Let them speak on their own time, on their own dime, and spew whatever venom they want, without government interference.

    My problem with the quote centers on the “right” to advocate through the same channels. Hardened by a long history with liberals, red flags go up whenever they mention “rights”, as it usually means their self-proclaimed right to force someone else to do or not do something.

    I don’t believe your basic anti has a right to demand equal time on Fox News, or on One America News Network, or in National Review, or on Rush’s program, or at the NRA annual convention. Those are all private channels and no one else is entitled to use their property without their permission. If antis want to speak through any media outlet that will have them, however, then so be it. Folks have a right to free association, too, after all, but I don’t believe in any newspeak “Fairness Doctrine.”

    I also don’t believe in repeal of the Dickey Amendment. The CDC, like most other public or private organizations dependant upon the government for funding, has shown a remarkable elasticity of ethics in producing advocacy agitprop, as opposed to credible science. If you accept the King’s shilling, you must do the King’s bidding.

    Antis don’t have a right to use my tax dollars against me to restrict my firearms freedom with a mantle of credibility lent by bogus, if prestigious, CDC “guns as a health threat” studies.

  45. “Ask them if they believe anti-gunners have a right to advocate through every channel you do for tougher gun control laws.”

    The only channel for legal, constitutional “gun control” laws is a constitutional amendment that alters or revokes the 2nd amendment. Anything else is an unconstitutional infringement of rights.

    • And yet it is legal to advocate unconstitutional measures.

      And it should be. As much personal satisfaction as I’d derive from punishing Fox News pundits for supporting and promoting torture in direct violation of the 8th Amendment, they should be free to speak their mind on such things, even if it’s a depraved and disgusting minds. No-one should be in the business of regulating what ideas can and cannot be disseminated; to do so is to infringe upon the fundamental freedom of people to make their own informed choices.

      • INT19H: “As much personal satisfaction as I’d derive from punishing Fox News pundits for supporting and promoting torture in direct violation of the 8th Amendment, they should be free to speak their mind on such things, even if it’s a depraved and disgusting minds. No-one should be in the business of regulating what ideas can and cannot be disseminated; to do so is to infringe upon the fundamental freedom of people to make their own informed choices.”

        How many of the North Vietnamese torturers that abused and murdered American POWs have you denounced and demanded punishment for? I can show you an X-ray of John McCain’s spine and shoulder blades that documents the damage done to him. What harm perpetrated by American “torturers” are you able to document?

        Or are you just another liberal hypocrite?

        • Why don’t you just go and read the Senate torture report? The harm includes at least one dead body (of a man, I must note, that hasn’t even been proven to be related to any terrorists in any meaningful way).

          And speaking of McCain, you know that he himself condemned the use of torture by USA in the wake of 9/11, right? If you respect the man, maybe you should listen to what he has to say on the subject. As a victim of torture himself, his take is certainly more relevant than that of chickenhawks like Cheney.

          Regarding torture of American POWs in Vietnam, I consider it as much of a war crime, and anyone responsible for it should stand trial alongside Cheney and the CIA torture squad. What’s disgusting here, though, is that USA has stooped down to the level of a Communist country. You’d expect better from “the land of the free and the brave”; communists, OTOH, never shied away from torture, so there was no surprise there at all.

          Ironically, US actually used to be much less tolerant of torture in general, and not just when it was directed against its soldiers: back during the occupation of the Philippines, some American soldiers were court martialed for torturing captured insurgents, specifically by waterboarding them.

  46. If anyone is engaging in efforts to censor opinions, that lies with the gun control groups. They have tirelessly tried to remove those with contrary beliefs from appearing on news shows, conventions etc. The recent mass blocking of gun owners on Twitter further proves this narrative.Much of their proposed legislation not only infringes on the right to bear arms, but on many other constitutional amendments like the right of trial by jury, just compensation for lawfully owned property seized, the right not to be forced to testify against ones self and the right to due process.

  47. I actually had this exact argument on Twitter a few days ago. Basically, yes, you can and should use every available medium to promote a cause that you feel worthy. I respect those who believe private gun ownership should be restricted and advocate for it, as long as they use facts and reason. The problem is the facts don’t exist and rarely is there reason in their arguement. Also, they’re just wrong.

    They also try to combat gun ownership from the sides with background checks and registration requirements. If they disagree with 2A, go after 2A directly, quit d–king around and hassling people. I guess it’s because they know that 2A isn’t going anywhere because if it does, the First Amendment they all love to hide behind becomes vulnerable as well.

  48. Do I want them to STFU?
    Yes.

    Do I advocate the government, at any level, regulate and restrict their First Amendment rights because of the way I feel?
    No.

    Simple. See how that works.

  49. Should gun control advocates STFU? Yes. If you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about you should shut up, listen and learn.

    Should gun control advocates be forced by the government to STFU? No. The First Amendment is just as sacred as the Second.

  50. I think they are rallying around the wrong amendment. Much like pilots think they have all the control and ego because they are flying the airplane it is more like the mechanics are allowing them to fly it.

    Without the 2nd Amendment the 1st falls flat on its face.

    Where are the 2A buttons indicating that 2A is our permit?

  51. There’s that troublesome word “should.” What does it really mean? Does it mean “ought to be required by law to…” or does it simply mean “the world would be better if…”

    I do NOT want to require anti gunners to not espouse their views. But the world would be a better place if they did indeed shut their pieholes.

  52. No. I may not agree with everything they say, but it doesn’t mean they need to be bullied into forfeiting their constitutional rights. They make some valid points regarding guns, but most of their views on how gun control should be are typically made out of ignorance.

  53. No, RF, you sly devil. TTAG needs grist for the mill.

    The 300+ comment counts come from outraged POTG reaction to nutty MDA pronoucements, Islamic threats, and new NY or CA gun-grabbig pols proposing new gun laws…;)

    Which come to think of it, are all the same,
    some deranged fascist Cult wishing death upon freedom defending men and women…

  54. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death, your right to say it…

    1A is just as sacred as #2…as we state over and over, 2A defends all the others, without prejudice or qualification.

    Dispite my absolute frustration with what they’re saying, I would defend any attempt by our government to try to pick and choose what is “good” speech and what is “bad” speech. Just as we don’t want anyone to pick and choose what parts of 2A apply, nor should anyone do the same with 1…or any of the others.

  55. I’ve a button which reads “I will defend to the death your right to despise and deride me.”

    It’s started a few conversations.

  56. Yes…the 1st Amendment absolutely must apply to anti-gun advocates as well. Liberals are already trying to squelch conservative speech and conservative values…and they’ve actually been successful. We shouldn’t lend any credibility to the tactic whatsoever by trying to use it in our (pro-2A) favor.

  57. They definitely have all rights to say whatever they want… this is what the first amendment is for, with absolutely no restriction at all.

    But let’s keep in mind, they are as much important as we let them to be. Which means, we shouldn’t give them so much attention and exposure. It will only make them legitimate and more important than they are.

    We should stay focus to educate people about guns, debunk false accusations and announcements about guns (remember the whole “Truth About Guns”). Lately this site has been way too focus on “fighting gun grabbers”, specially MDA. This is wrong.

    We would do a better job at educating people about guns, gun laws, and spreading the real “gun culture” and the proper info about guns (goods and bads). So in few words: let the anti-guns talk as much as they want, not responding to every single actions, but have a bigger picture in mind to make them irrelevant.

    PS: The late numbers did show that Americans are more in favor of guns, and it’s without any doubt the result of a large wave of pro-guns websites, youtube channels, etc… transmitting proper info, and the passion for the gun culture. Let’s keep working that way and win the war instead to pick every single battles.

  58. “Ask them if they believe anti-gunners have a right to advocate through every channel you do for tougher gun control laws.” The antis have the liberal main stream media and we do not. I call B.S. on this.

  59. Everyone has the right to their opinion. They also have the right to express that opinion, if they wish to do so.
    When they do express that opinion, they should be prepared to explain how they came to form that opinion, by what reasoning they reached that conclusion.

  60. If anti-gunners don’t support my right to keep and bear arms to protect my life, I don’t support their right to life either, much less their right to free speech.

    GFYAD, anti-gunners.

  61. Yes, I support their right to free speech. I also support the right for Nazis to march in Skokie. i don’t agree with either party.

  62. One of the central tenets of our heterogeneous culture is that we have to tolerate the presence of things we don’t agree with. We’re free to compete in the marketplace of ideas, but we aren’t supposed to be able to co-opt the power of the State to serve our own political agendas when they conflict with those of other people who are also supposed to be served by the State.

Leave a Reply

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