Screen_Shot_2014-05-27_at_2.28.58_PM

This is something of a rhetorical question. Gun rights advocates are not bullies. Sure, there are a few strident “come and take it” types amongst our number. But they are not the death threat type. Proponents of civilian disarmament paint pro-gunners as “extremists” with hair-trigger tempers who seek to cow the anti-gun agitators with “bullying” tactics because the antis lack the facts to support their cause. It’s a sign of desperation. For example [via bostonglobe.com] . . .

Clear Channel owns 25 billboards that had been part of the statewide antiviolence campaign. On Thursday, just two days after the billboards went up, the company removed the signs, which read, “We’re not anti-gun. We’re pro-life. Massachusetts Gun Laws Save Lives,” and featured a Bushmaster XM-15 assault rifle with a white flag in the barrel.

Another company, Outfront Media, also rescinded a donated billboard.

Rosenthal said he’s hoping to use the donated cash — he pegged it at $25,700 — to revive the campaign, and said it could move beyond roadside advertising.

He would not identify the six donors, out of fear they would be “intimidated” by gun supporters, but said they are from Massachusetts.

In other words, the astro-turf organization known as Stop Handgun Violence maintains that I did not depend on ballistic bully boy (yes I said it) and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s cash to recoup lost credibility. At the same time, the Campaign to Stop Gun Violence immediately called gun owners “bullies” for convincing Clear Channel to rescind their offer of free anti-gun agitprop.

My response: I know you are but what am I? Am I right? Are anti-gunners bullies? In the context of the fight for gun rights, what does that even mean?

Recommended For You

77 Responses to Question of the Day: Who’s The “Gun Bully”?

  1. There is a long history of liberal/socialist tactics that can be summed up as “the end justifies the means.” The left is all for non-violence, peace and fairness, but when it comes to creating their utopian ideals, the gloves come off and anything goes.

    I’m glad that pro-gun people are generally not bullies and I think we should not support bullying behavior in our ranks. I do think we need to take some lessons from the other side and fight tougher and smarter.

    • We should put a billboard next to it showing how many liberal approved abortions have occurred since Sandy Hook.

        • In 2011, approximately 1.06 million abortions took place in the United States. I would say that the horrific slaughter of innocents award goes to the left. So, let’s remove the <.01 percent (http://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/abortions-in-america/) that were as a result of rape, incest, etc. and let's see… 1,049,400 abortions times 2.25 years = 2,361,150 innocent lives lost. Congratulations.
          I'm going to throw up.

        • You know the old saying. One death is a tragedy, one million is just a statistic.

      • this is desperate by the gugrabbers.

        here are some facts:
        1) the November 204 Gallup says 63% of Americans agree having a gun makes a home safe from crime. ALL academics looking at polling agree that on issues people consider private, eg whether they are gay or if they have a gun, are best asked in a round about way to get accurate results. GSS bangs on your door and asks if you have a gun. they get 33% affirmative on the direct question. Gallup on the direct question over the phone gets 44%to 47% the past four years. But the round about question which is likely the most accurate predictor gets 63%. This has gun controllers in a panic.

        2) 2/3 of US gun deaths are suicide. Studies that don’t control for demographics assert a maximum of 6% of would not occur by other means. Studies that do control for demographics ie comparing 55 old unemployed males whose wives just died with guns to the same demographic without access to a gun; or 30 year old employed females with vs without access to guns in any given state, find ZERO elevated risk of self caused death associated with gun access. Zero.

        3) the great majority of the rest of people killed with gun are criminals shot by other criminals.

        4) the hundreds of thousands to millions of crimes prevented by gun owners each year, almost all without firing a shot, are not counted

        • Citation please? Not because I don’t believe you, but I would like to use these little tidbits in the future when arguing.

        • http://www.gallup.com/poll/179213/six-americans-say-guns-homes-safer.aspx

          Dou have a JSTOR account? that is the site where you can find the academic research I mentioned on accuracy in surveying and polling on questions considered private. Undercount is typically estimated at about 50%. if you have no JSTOR you can google studies on accuracy of direct polling on whether people are gay. Essentially round about questions are more accurate o these issues because respondents answer as if their answers were public.

          On criminality of homicide victims in the US, here is one study of many:
          http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm

        • I can access JSTOR through my university. I’ll look up the studies when I have more time after finals. Appreciate the info, thanks.

        • Boston University just did a study on undercounts on questions of sexual orientation, and use of round about questions. One of my undergrad students worked on that study as a grad.

          The privacy created undercount is amplified in the case of firearms because of tangible value as well. GSS asking if a gun is in the house is already akin to asking if one keeps large amounts of cash because guns are one of the highest original value of fenced value items. Stolen electronics are typically fenced 1/10 the cost, guns and jewelry at 50% to 100% of cost.

          The work also indicates that not only are there general total undercounts, certain demographics are more likely to be undercounts as well. Answers of no guns by Democrat gun owners maybe higher. Undercounts of younger persons and women maybe lower as well/

      • Who is getting abortions? Read this and think about it. Do the math.
        =============

        Which racial or ethnic groups are most likely to have abortions in the United States?

        Answer:
        Non-Hispanic black and Hispanic women have higher rates of abortion (40 and 29 per 1,000 women aged 15–44, respectively) than non-Hispanic white women do (12 per 1,000). The higher rates reflect the fact that black and Hispanic women have high unintended pregnancy rates (91 and 82 per 1,000 women, respectively), compared with non-Hispanic white women (36 per 1,000 women).

  2. I’m sitting here minding my own business. A bunch of harpies and billionaires start pounding on my door shouting orders.

    Should be pretty obvious who the bully is.

    • Anytime a liberal comes up to me and tries to take my lunch money, I just present my pistol and tell them I gave it to the NRA. So I would not label them effective bullies. But yes there’s a wanna be Hitler / Mao / Stalin in every statist.

  3. The word “bully” has been entirely overused, and I wouldn’t mind seeing it disappear altogether from these venues. To call the action-seeking so-called moms “bullies” is to give them too much credit, and to imply weakness on the part of their opponents and/or targets. I say leave the juvenile, politically-correct, insult-du-jour name-calling to the antis, as it fits their style (and is all they have instead of substance).

      • Isn’t that the truth–the once-honored phrase “common sense” has come to stand for the complete opposite of its actual meaning. The word “diversity” has come to connote all manner of hypersensitive lunacy. Heck, I could go on forever….

        • Ugh! “Diversity” is one of my most hated words now. Someone says “diversity” and all I hear is “affirmative action.”

        • All I hear is some terminally politically correct fool droning on incomprehensibly in some conference room that my employer required me to be in for an interminable couple of hours.

      • Actually, its especially the language they destroy. Doing so is their number one tool to advance their causes.

        • For them, the newspeak dictionary is double plus good tool. To them, you use double plus ungood duckspeak.

          (old book reference for those that can’t figure this one out. If you haven’t read it, you should)

    • I couldn’t agree more. This sort of “You’re a bully!” “No, you’re a bully!” name calling is juvenile and doesn’t really move the needle for either side. It’s pointless posturing and preaching to the choir.

      • Agreed. The antis wind up the hype machine, and ours wind up in response. I agree that we need to be really proactive to win the hearts and minds of the general public.

        On the other hand, my own opinion is mostly this: Sit back, relax and have a refreshing beverage of your choosing. Also if anyone tries to come to my house and do crime to me or mine, (including breaching my 2nd amendment rights) I will fvkin shoot ya. Have a nice day!

        besides, life will dump plenty of awful things in your lap for free, why search them out?

  4. they can’t stand that we get our message across without the outlandish marketing strategies.
    the constant egg in their face when phony stats are exposed doesn’t help. the lackluster shows of support during their rallies ruffle their feathers as much as the open carry activist in the grocery store.
    they won’t have their own tactics turned against them. like may, they hate to lose. all that’s left is mudslinging and name calling. and who’s the bully?

    using your hard earned dollars as leverage against a business isn’t bullying. its a form of protest. and it’s working. even Bloomberg can’t counter millions of ad revenue dollars NOT coming in because you slighted a huge portion of your customer base. Right, Kroger? <not a jab-more of a pat on the back.

  5. My favorite gun bully was the crazy fat lady fantasizing about shooting the nattily dressed gentleman in the pith helmet, IN THE BACK at the grocery store check out line, simply because she objected to his accesorizing choices.

    MDA Fashionista Nazis!

  6. “Are anti-gunners bullies?”

    No, but as the open carry demonstrations showed, we tend to be amateurish when it comes to staging public events and articulating political positions. That’s because we tend to be grass-roots folks without the slick media skills of the hired flacks Bloomberg Media employs. Shannon is a lot more paid flack than concerned mom. Her problem is that her professionalism is too visible. Despite the flash, she just isn’t all that credible. Grass-roots gun-rights activists aren’t dumb. Open Carry Texas was embarrassingly amateurish when it got started. Now it isn’t.

  7. If 10% of all gun owners were as violent and out of control as the antis paint us, there would not be one anti-gun advocate left standing. Let’s face it, you do not deliberately insult someone that you know has the means and intent to kill you. This may be why militant Islam gets a pass from the liberals.

  8. “In other words, the astro-turf organization known as Stop Handgun Violence maintains that **I** did not depend on ballistic bully boy (yes I said it) and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s cash to recoup lost credibility.”

    I’m sure you meant **it**, not **I**. 😉

    And no, we’re not bullies. We just care about our rights. It should be clear to the anti-gunners by now, that we are the majority. How else could we have so much influence?

    • Sorry Chip. I don’t think they can claim such a title.

      Think of the short, scrawny, underweight boy in your class, the one who most of the girls could beat up if they wanted to. And he also has a big mouth and likes to make empty threats. He really wants to be a bully but he lacks the size, strength or friends to make it happen.

      That’s today’s anti-gun rights movement. They would be bullies if they could, but they’re too weak to be taken seriously.

      • That is exactly what I meant when I said calling them “bullies” gives them too much credit. A “bully” actually has some strength, he is just too cowardly to use it against anyone who may have an equal amount of strength. Shannon and her gaggle of empty-nester harpies have no real strength, of numbers, or of intelligence, or of will. They are like the WNBA; without being propped up by some “big boys” they would be long gone and mostly forgotten.

      • I have never been good at sports and been a voracious reader for most of my life (it says something when a boy in third grade has read more books than anyone else in school), and I am nearsighted/astigmatic–but one factor kept me from getting bullied in junior high–the fact that I was among the strongest kids in the grade with the power and acceleration that enabled several cousins to play guard and tackle in college

  9. “I support the Second Amendment, but…”

    Yep, say that here on TTAG, and watch the “fun” as your fellow TTAG’ers come out of the woodwork. Perhaps you’ll be accused of being treasonous, or a “false flag” operation. Or worse. If one assumes that TTAG commenters are a reasonable cross-section of gun rights supporters, it seems we’re spending an awful lot of time patting ourselves on the back about how wonderfully reasonable we are, all while avoiding recognizing how we react here, not to mention our tendency to feed on our own when someone doesn’t pass the ideaological purity test.

    • I think the main thing wrong with your troll is that it is unworthy of response.

      I’m sure if nobody else responds that will pizz you off the most.
      Here’s hoping that transpires.

      • I was unable to form a response… it was a rather silly post that got very little emotion. The poster was not a very well versed lib I guess.

    • There are an unfortunate number of pro-gun people who seem unable or unwilling to accept and support the simple “…shall not be infringed.” statement of the Second Amendment. Their presumed acceptance of qualifiers on the 2A right when they would have none of the same for anything else in the Bill of Rights is problematic. For this reason when they post here many of us will attempt to educate them as to their misunderstanding. I fail to see where a discussion intended to educate and enlighten can in any way be classified as bullying.

    • I’ll tell you, I thought he was nuts at first. I’m not convinced yet, but I find it very interesting the efforts made NOT to answer and to discredit him. Shades of gray and all that.

  10. I sent a polite but critical email to ClearChannel/iHeartMedia. Does sending a polite email expressing my opinion make be a bully? Do thousands of like minded individuals acting in concert constitute a collective bully?

    How many supporters of civilian disarmament sent emails, I wonder? Any?

    If we were really bullies, we’d be demanding ‘common sense’ laws requiring other people to not only buy guns and learn how to use them, but to be prepared to defend themselves and others. We’d demand laws imposing criminal liability for failure to defend.

  11. I’m sure Clear Channel made a business decision to rescind the ads. Apparently it was in their best interests to do so. How is that “bullying”?

  12. “Gun rights advocates are not bullies. Sure, there are a few strident “come and take it” types amongst our number.”

    Soooo . . . you’re implying that if anyone has the mindset of “come and take it” when it comes to our firearms then we’re bullies?

    That has to be one of the most INSANE statements from someone writing for a pro-Second Amendment website that I have ever read.

    • That isn’t how I interpreted it at all. My inference is that Robert was trying to say that “we” collectively are a group of non-bullies, but that some may mistakenly confuse the “come and take it” types as bullies because of their hard-line attitude concerning gun rights. In no way did I think he was even saying that anyone should not be a “come and take it” type of person. I tend to fall into that category, but I also don’t wear NRA hats or 511 tactical pants. It’s not that I’m against it, I just live a little more “under the radar”. My friends and family have no doubt as to my feelings toward gun grabbers and the for-the-children mom’s groups.

  13. It means they have lost the logical argument yet again and are resorting to emotional appeals. Attaching an evil label to a group or thing they don’t like is among their top tactics. They call us bullies for the same reason they call us racists, sexists, misogynists, homophobic, rednecks, uneducated, and every other nasty label in their repertoire. Attaching an evil label to us helps to keep their base from thinking for themselves or listening to our arguments. It gives their leaders a convenient way to dismiss anything we have to say. After all, why would any good American listen to the opinion of a bunch of uneducated racist redneck homophobic bullies on public policy? Bottom line: it’s a propaganda tactic that keeps their sheep drinking the progressive Koolaid and may win over some of those who are undecided.

  14. The more strident and insane the Left gets about guns, the more their program is falling apart. So, no, they are not bullies. They’re just a disease that’s being kept under control, and they don’t like it one little bit.

    And us? We’re not bullies. All we want is for them to keep their damn, dirty paws off of us and our property.

  15. As I recall from grade school, bullies were usually the ones trying to take something away from someone else.

  16. Anti-gunners? No, not necessarily, though sometimes they are. There are quite a few out there that are actual pacifists or have other reasons for being against firearms, or even weapons of any kind. They may be wrong, are frequently idealists but they’re not all bullies and many can have quite thoughtful conversations if you’re willing to treat them decently.

    Progressives, on the other hand depend on mob intimidation and are inherently bullies. That should not be a surprise to anyone when you consider that one of the cornerstones of their philosophy is based on revolution. It is a worldview that is inherently based on violence and is anti-libertarian. Their position requires that their foes be unable to defend themselves, so they are natural anti-gun bullies.

  17. Glad we were able to get the billboards taken down.
    But that’s just part of the fight. No surprise that he statistic itself is purposely misleading. Of course, it’s a typical leftist attic of misinformation by giving a “startling” number that’s, in truth, meaningless.
    Sandy Hook happened over two years ago. Using their own statistic and just roughly calculating, if you cut the number in half to get a close yearly figure the statistic of “GUN Deaths” is actually quite low, lower than its been in 20 years. Take out suicide, roughly 60% of “Gun Deaths”, and tragic as it is, it becomes more like 9,306.
    Then, let’s not forget that gun ownership has skyrocketed during that period. Then”more guns less crime” become the REAL message.
    Sadly the average person driving by the sign will never do the math and the impression lodged in their psyche is ” we’ve gotta DO Something!”
    SO, what would happen if pro 2A groups used the same tactic and put up their own billboards:
    KNOW THE TRUTH
    “GUN DEATHS ARE DOWN BY 50% !!!
    DON”T BE MISLEAD.

    which is actually a true statement if you go back to 1993.
    That might stir the pot for the average drive-by reader but, even if it didn’t … it would really piss-off the antis. Wouldn’t THAT be fun?

  18. No. We back up our arguments w/facts. Its not like we stole their ball and went home….or is it? Never mind.

  19. in the case of CSGV, they are belly crawling snakes. They make The Brady Campaign look like Heaven on earth….

  20. What kind of fantasy world are you living in to say anti gunners are bullies and the pro gunners are not?

    Have a proper look and you will see that both sides have the same small nasty vocal contingent. Just look at the comments posted on TTaG and see if you still think the pro fun side is nice if they were talking about your wife, daughter or mother.
    If you want to point out what awful people they are at least be consistent and call out people on both sides.

    • Paul R,

      You are missing a monumental point. Gun grabbers proactively seek to ruin the lives of good people who have harmed no one. Gun rights supporters are responding to gun grabbers’ attacks on their right to life, liberty, and/or property.

      If a violent criminal attacker announces their intention to ruin your life, are you in the wrong if you announce your intention to defend yourself and retaliate?

      What does a violent criminal attacker do? They violate our right to life, liberty, and/or property through the use or threat of force. What do gun grabbers do? They are soliciting government to violate our right to life, liberty, and/or property through the use or threat of force. At the very least, that makes gun grabbers a criminal accessory to any loss of life, liberty, and/or property that anyone experiences at the hands of government. At the worst, gun grabbers are active criminal participants in any loss of life, liberty, and/or property that anyone (who refuses to give up their firearms) experiences at the hands of government.

      • Don’t you think “ruin” is a bit strong. Just how would your life be ruined if you don’t have a gun? There are a lot of people who don’t own guns around the world who are living happy satisfied lives.

        • There are hundreds of millions of women wearing burkas around the world who are living happy, satisfied lives. Think maybe, with a paradigm shift and an increase in freedom, they could potentially be living even happier, even more satisfied lives?

          Besides, he clearly indicated what he meant by “proactively ruin” – that is, leaving law-abiding people defenseless against violent criminals who would ruin their lives.

        • I am pretty sure if you die from an attack your life will be ruined. A firearm presents a chance to avoid death or permanent injury from an attacker. You now have one simple example of how not having a gun could lead to your life being ruined. With a little thought I am sure you can come up with some other scenarios.

        • Chip, not sure what guns have to do with women in burkas. I am pretty sure you don’t think they wear them because they are unarmed or if they were armed they would suddenly ditch their religious beliefs.

          I am not arguing the potential harm you are opened up to. I just think ruin is a strong word to use for something that has a low probability.

        • Go back and read it more slowly. Maybe you’ll understand the analogy next time. Hint: it has to do with understanding one’s individual freedom and individual responsibility.

    • It would be correct to say there is hate on both sides but the amount of hate from the Left FAR exceeds anything that comes out of the right.

      Here is one glaring proof…..

      Compare the number of political commentators and speakers that are shouted down or require personal bodyguards for valid concerns of their safety. On the Left you can say the most vile lies (Ward Churchill, Sharpton, terrorist buddies of BHO Dorn& Ayers,Huey Newton,etc) and have not a care in the world whereas there are numerous conservative speakers that require bodyguards (Ann Coultre, David Horowitz, Ayaan Hirsi,etc).

      There’s no hate that matches the hate from the Left.

      • We are talking pro and anti gun here remember not left vs right.

        A quick look on google turned up nothing as to why the people mentioned have bodyguards but what was there points more to obnoxious crowd control (as in the people in the crowd are assh0les) rather than protection from specific threats.

        Also, another quick google search for “anti gun group bully” vs “pro gun group bully” shows the anti gun groups being talked of as bullies and using bullying tactics but the pro gun group bullies using physical intimidation, threats of rape, disappointment that victims were not actually killed etc.

        I haven’t found articles talking about anti gunners provoking confrontation like the pro gun side or publishing their names and addresses for calling the police. They may be out there but they are not as visible.

        • I’m sorry, you’ve never seen the guys at CSGV and MDA and HuffPo and the rest threatening to brain someone with a shovel for legally carrying, suggesting calling for SWAT in the hopes that a legally-carrying person will be shot down, expressing the hope that licensed carriers’ children get shot, etc, etc. ? I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

        • We are talking pro and anti gun here remember not left vs right.

          Wrrrooonnnggg.

          People are pro-gun for many varied reasons (pro-2A, collecting, hunting, sports, engineering marvels, satisfaction of controlling danger, etc)

          In contrast, people are anti-gun for one primary reason and that is to exert control and dominion over other people because they believe that they or government knows best….that’s core Leftist ideology.

    • You’re hilarious. Did you kneel at your altar to the government and thank Emperor Obama for today’s sunrise?

  21. Let the haters say what they want because at the end of the of the day, we defeat the gun grabbers with the facts! And when they can’t win with the facts they just make up false facts and we expose it to show its a lie that they made up.

    • Unless the antis control the politicians, or ARE the politicians. Come to CA to see the results of that scenario.

      It doesn’t seem to matter how the facts stack up here; the anti-gun Dems pretty much control the process, the message, and the results, regardless of facts or reality.

  22. Hmm. Let us see. Gun grabbers actively petition government to destroy the lives of good people whose “crime” is having an effective tool that good people use to defend their lives and the lives of their families … and gun grabbers pay money to government to fund those actions to destroy the lives of good people who have harmed no one.

    That goes way beyond being a bully. That is pure hatred of fellow human beings who are “different”. Hating someone for being “different” and paying someone to destroy their life is conspiracy to harm/murder … a felony the last time that I checked.

  23. The anti-2nd amendment crowd is not much more of a bully than members of the former National-Socialist Party were in Europe in the mid 1930’s. With that comparison, they are somewhat tame. 🙂

    • While the shrill voices calling for gun control are “tame” in comparison to the former National-Socialist Party of Europe in the mid 1930’s, their paid muscle (local, state, and federal law enforcement agents) and enablers (prosecutors and judges) are far, far worse.

      If you don’t believe me, please go stand on a busy street corner in Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, or Washington D.C. with a rifle slung over your shoulder and see what happens when the “tame” gun control supporters (police) show up. Make sure you are adamant in your refusal of their “doctrine” so we can watch the event on the television news.

      Note: my comment is not necessarily directed at Bob108 … rather at people who think gun grabbers are nothing more than misguided people flapping their gums.

  24. Born in Mass over 60 yrs ago. Tired of hearing about it. If they insist on returning to their British Colony days, good riddance! Wont ever move back there, and they can kiss my asterisk. Loving life in El Paso.

  25. I consider those who support the 2nd Amendment as being Pro Choice. Don’t hear anything about anyone from the camp forcing anyone to arm themselves.

    The other side is Right to (NO) Life. You are supposed to cower and eat a bullet so the rest of them can feel good about themselves and pass another law banning firearms. If you die in a particularly hideous way, they might even name the new law after you.

  26. Proving how many deaths guns prevent is a problem for gun owners. If the encounter ends without injury or loss of property not many people are going to call the police. Even if the police are notified that a crime was stopped by a gun owner who keeps count? All we can do is estimate the number of crimes prevented by guns. I know crime is much lower in my neighborhood because almost everyone is armed. Nearby areas were people are traditionally not armed have a much higher crime rate.

  27. Yeah, we’re bullies, the same way Rosa Parks was a bully. The same way the men at Lexington and Concorde were bullies.

    Sorry, gun grabbing fascists, you’re the attackers, we’re the defenders. Go ahead and try to take away innocent people’s basic human rights, then call them bullies when they resist.

Leave a Reply

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