1zzpsCgr

“Until the gun control argument becomes a real argument instead of a transparent power grab, there’s only one appropriate response to liberal gun banners. And it’s similar to ‘Screw you.’” – Kurt Schlichter in Gun Rights Advocates Have A Devastating New Argument Against Gun Control. Here It Is. [at ijreview.com]

34 Responses to Quote of the Day: Brass Tacks Edition

  1. It’s nice to see the truth and facts that have been written on this site, being written elsewhere…
    From a former Army Officer and Attorney to boot!

    • By a trial lawyer in Los Angeles?!

      The parallel here is arguing a criminal case. The suspect was arrested because of statements, evidence and the totality of the circumstances. The facts, taken as a whole, either support guilt, innocence or are inconclusive. That’s the way a case is properly argued. If gun laws were argued the same way, well, we’d have a whole lot less gun laws.

      In fact, we’d have a Constitutional Republic. Secure borders. Lower taxes. Politicians in jail for the crimes they have committed. No more NSA spying. Balanced budget. Our nation would be wildly successful again.

      Instead we have power hungry politicians lying their way into our homes and bank accounts.

  2. I wonder if this trend of no more compromise will stay with us. I certainly hope the horrors of compromise that were the 80’s and 90’s are long gone.
    Unfortunately, all the anti’s will cry “that’s mean” and it bolsters their opinion that gun owners are bullies. I can picture Momsanto holding up a picture of some child with the words “Screw You” beneath.

    It’s a twisted tactic they have to use wussification as a means to bend hundreds of millions of people to their will:
    “I’m scared, I’m frightened. Please give up all your liberty and property to make me feel better.”

    • I think we have reached the point that we don’t need to compromise anymore. Public opinion is clearly in our favor. Joe Manchin can’t get anyone to jump onto his gun-grabbing band wagon. Every time a tragedy happens, the left wastes no time in attempting to capitalize on it but it gets nowhere.

      40+ states with shall issue or constitutional carry laws, and violent crime keeps going down, not up. The general public is either slowly waking up to that reality, or they’re sick of relying on police to protect them. Either way, I like the momentum.

    • I think it will stay with us because it has worked. Plus we have time and technology on our side. Time because all the baby boomers and the progressives that birthed them are dying. I grew up under Reagan not Roosevelt or even Ike. I’m more used to smaller governemnt ideas. People my age and younger are either lefties or libertarians not many Rockefeller progressive republicans under 50. So the right is gonna change to be more libertarian and really I think the left will also.
      Technology is a big deal. If the governemnt banned all handguns today and managed to confiscate all 270 million, we would still have them. Making a gun, esp one that is just to be used in one crime, is not that hard. The tools ( esp with modern computer driven CNC tools) and cad files are too easy to get. It would be MUCH easier to set up an underground arms shop than a meth lab. Now with 3d printing coming into the for front, personal manufacture would even be easier. This is the disruptive tech that will make prohibition silly. What happens when criminals stop stealing guns and start making them? You can’t stop clandestine manufacture, we have tried with drugs and booze for a century. Faced with that truth armed civilians are the only sane option.
      Also we are starting to have history on our side. As anti gun policies fail to make populations safer both here and in other countries, the antis arguments look much more thin and dogmatic than fact based. To paraphrase an asshole- “The science is settled” more guns less crime.

  3. He’s a little to “shock value” for the sake of shock value for me. Has been for a while. I’m not saying he has bad arguments, but just telling someone who believes the rhetoric but may be swayed with the proper argument “‘Screw you.’ That’s it. Except the first word isn’t ‘Screw.'” won’t win anyone to our side. You’ll look childish and unwilling to listen to the other side, kind of like a kid with his fingers in ears yelling “La La La La!”

    • I didn’t read the full comments, but I did scan through an article somewhere quoting him. It’s not really “eff off” to anyone who disagrees with me, it’s more “eff you” to truly anti-gun agitators and zealots. And let’s be honest, many of them fully deserve the treatment.

    • I guess you did not read the article. He makes the case that there is no sense to argue with people that don’t argue in good faith and will never be swayed by reason.
      The only appropriate answer to that is indeed “F**k you!”
      If there is anything that annoys me more than the frickin’ liberals are people like you that would use appeasement as their tactic. No compromise!

      • I’m sorry trying to take the high ground annoys you. But replying like an upset teenager doesn’t make converts, more likely to do the opposite. The best way to handle people not dealing in good faith is to show how their ideals and solutions are in no one’s best interest. These people will never be brought to our side with words. But hurling curse words with no substance will push people off the fence to their side, not ours.

        • You’re not understanding the crux of this thing. Think Feinstein and Bloomberg will listen to your reasonable, factual arguments? They won’t. Those who are reasonable might be persuaded. The unreasonable must be opposed. If they can’t be fired, imprisoned, or voted out of office, the middle finger is still a good option. Try to appease them with an inch and they’ll take a mile.

        • I think what the article is saying is screw converts. Some people are not going to convert or be convinced because they are statists with another agenda. Instead of trying to convince them we are right we are better off convincing them that we will use violent resistance if needed to protect our rights. Then we can just agree to disagree.

    • Except the other side is the kid with his fingers in his ears. You present all the facts contrary to their points, yet they continue to outright lie about the issue.

    • There is shock value in saying “Screw you!”. We are done engaging in a faux “discussion” with gun-grabbers dealing in bad faith.

      If anyone wants to have a real dialogue on gun laws they are invited to post on our boards.

      We will deal only with legislators who will reason with us about reforms to ATF, NICS, GCA ’68, NFA ’34. In the grand tradition of Obamacare negotiation, we will work up bills within a gun-rights caucus. Our witnesses will testify on CNN. Gun-controllers will testify in executive session – no press allowed.

  4. Fortunately, the continuing breakdown of urban society clarifies the issue for most people paying a little attention. Concealed carry applications wouldn’t be going up if people weren’t seeing through many of the antis emotional arguments. Call 911, that’s why we have police, yada, yada, yada. It rings empty when cities allow riots to occur, police take hours to respond to violent crime, and judges put violent criminals on probation. Lord Farquaad and his more photogenic PR professional activist using mommy status as a shield can’t paper over all this. Not in Chicago, not in Oakland, not in San Francisco, not in New York, not in Baltimore, not in Milwaukee.

    • The inner-cities and the Jihadi attacks as well.

      Tell us, please, why we should expect that Jihadi attacks on innocent college kids, food workers, and soldiers can’t possibly go up from current levels.

      Tell us, please, how 911 is certain to arrive on time in every case to keep casualties under 1.

  5. This is about the same argument I adopted about eight months back, only my version was, “Go screw yourself/”. In fact you can apply this argument and the logic supporting it to almost everything the Liberal Socialists advocate for. No point in trying to reason with the irrational because they argue from false premises and hide their true intentions and goals. Then there’s the juvenile name-calling, slander and hate-speak.

    Kurt Schlichter’s piece is well written and reasoned and we should share it widely and adopt it universally.

  6. The Colonel is dead on. The left in virtually every arena of debate ignores facts and therefore the truth. Guns represent the fact that sometimes life is dangerous, that life is mysterious and that life at times requires men (and women) of action. All of these things the myopic socialists in our country do not understand or want to hear. Our Ivy league betters want brain dead t.v. addicted couch potatoes that look to big daddy government for there health, safety, entertainment and finally they want the government to tell them what is right and wrong. That is why anything that competes with that vision is castigated and attacked. Guns, Christianity, and Capitalism are their most hated foes because they create or represent cultures which compete with their vision of socialist paradise.
    As evidenced by the disgusting abortion for profit videos, the left in our country is just a half step removed from the national socialists of 70 years ago.

  7. The left doesn’t understand why we won’t cave in to their demands to disarm. Their normal tactics of shame and “outing” doesn’t work on gun owners. I read the article yesterday. I love it. Antis refuse to deal in facts. Screw ’em. No. You can’t take our guns. Enough said.

  8. He has a valid point, of course. Wrestling with pigs, playing chess with a pigeon, and all that. But could someone tell me off the top of their head what IJReview is?? I have the feeling it may have the readership level of something like, say, Wonkette. Hopefully I am wrong.

  9. That was an absolutely outstanding piece. I’ve said before that ‘background checks’ mean nothing to me, because I have never purchased a gun without one. But we all know that there is no way to compromise with these people. They are outright liars with one single goal only (complete disarmament) and would do anything to accomplish that goal, including lying through their teeth, cheating, going back on their word, etc. They can not be trusted even so much as to have an actual honest discussion and speak in a truthful manner, let alone trusted enough to ever consider any ‘compromise’ that might be negotiated. So Screw You, Antis! You had your chance to have an open, honest discussion – and we see what you came up with. You wanted to march us all in like criminals to get mugshotted and take us back to the 1800’s by banning anything semi-auto – and that was just the first step towards complete confiscation and disarmament. “Oh, no one wants to take your guns, you paranoid nuts hahaha…. but hey, I think we need to look what Australia did” BAH HAH HAH HAH. LIARS, ALL OF YOU! Molon Labe!

  10. That was awesome. The ONLY thing I would differ on is: It wouldn’t be another Civil War if they come to try to confiscate our firearms. It would be another Revolutionary War.

    • ” It wouldn’t be another Civil War if they come to try to confiscate our firearms. It would be another Revolutionary War.”

      The Revolutionary War was America’s first civil war. It was a war fought between the citizens who wanted individual liberty, and the colonists that couldn’t function normally without bending their knees to the crown. The foreign troops were just the back up for the statist, and it was kind of like how the U.N. would act in current times.

  11. No American should have to engage any discussion about retaining a Constitutional Right. Anti-Constitution is anti-American which = a traitor which means prison.

  12. So, how about this:
    – ‘Screw’ you
    – We won’t “discuss” the right of self-defense
    – The enemy is the Main-Stream Media
    – MSM is personified by Michael Bloomberg
    – The debate ‘forum’ is rigged against us by MSM
    – Articles are one-sided; Bloomberg’s blogs delete our posts
    – We ask crimonologists and gun experts to stop lending the Anti-MSM a veneer of even-handed-ness
    – Our forums allow Antis to post, we don’t delete their posts
    – We will cease our futal attempts to post on the Anti-boards
    – Any fair-minded person can see what we have to say on our forums which are fair
    – We’re here to have a “pissing match” with men who buys their ink by the barrel
    – We subscribe to the Civil Rights principle of non-violent civil disobediance
    – But beware, we WILL be heard (we load our own cartridges)
    – We cordially invite every Progressive politition to put his entire agenda on-the-line to oppose our rights
    – Every vulnerable member of our society, Blacks, Hispanics, women, is our natural constituent
    – Police can’t and polititions won’t protect vulnerable people
    – The inner-city is waking-up to recognizing the failure of government to protect them

    We need to adopt some Saul Alinsky techniques. We have to personify the “enemy” Bloomberg makes a great figurehead. He is in the publishing business which makes a great tie to the MSM. He was a politician, mayor of a large failing city. He is an aggressive Progressive targeting people’s consumption of tobacco, trans-fats, salt and soda. He is a hypocrite surrounding himself with a dozen NYPD-vet body-guards. He funds the Moms, Mayors and Everytown. So, by putting him personally in our cross-hairs we get a single target for our venting.

    Nobody trusts the MSM or politicians; so, the link to Bloomberg as publisher and politician is strong.

    Everybody wants to get an even-handed representation of the facts, issues and arguments. The fact that we can show that the MSM and Bloomberg’s boards are shutting us out should attract an audience.

    By refusing to “negotiate” or “discuss” with our bad-faith adversaries we are shifting the burden of evaluating gun-control to the general public. Suppose the guy in our audience who is somewhat sympathetic to gun control; but it’s not his main issue in life. Heretofore, he could simply rely on his Democrat or RINO politicians to consider the gun-control issue and work-it-out between Bloomberg and the NRA. By embargoing any discussion in the MSM or Bloomberg’s boards we are taking our case directly to this guy. HE has to DECIDE INDIVIDUALLY; or, just forget about whatever sympathies he might have had for gun-control proposals.

    What will he do? Roll-up-his-sleves and start reading our boards? Or, forget about gun-control as an issue worth supporting? We don’t care a lot whichever course he takes.

    Threatening to split the Democrats should have the effect of defusing gun-control for most of them. We can call them the Dixiecrats who want to introduce Jim-Crow gun-control: No guns for Negros. Bloomberg is quoted as saying as much; No guns for male Negros 16 to 25 years of age. Are the Democrats’ Black constituents going to vote for that?

    Blacks are recognizing how vulnerable they are; and, they have champions for self-defense in Sheriff Clark and Chief Craig. Ferguson and Baltimore have proven that the police won’t be there for them. Blacks are concerned with police abuse of power; well, so are many of us PotG. We share an interest in self-defense and checking police power. Particularly as respects No-Knock raids.

    We PotG need not propose that vulnerable people (minorities, women, physically-challenged individuals) vote Republican; i.e., we are NON-Partison. We will criticize every Republican that fails to give us full-throated support for gun rights. Instead, we are urging these vulnerable people to demand that their politicians protect their civil rights to defend themselves and to suppress abuse of police power.

    There are other wedge issues we can pursue. We need not adhere to the NRA’s policy of being single-issue. One obvious issue is education in the inner-city. The Dixiecrats support failed public schools and oppose vouchers and other school choice options. We PotG can advocate that the best thing to reduce violent crime is to give vulnerable kids a good education; and, to this end, we support school choice and vouchers. Again, we aren’t making any partisan voting recommendation; rather, we advocate that parents demand school choice and vouchers from their politicians.

    We can attack the Dixiecrat politicians who have run major cities into the ground by controlling their governments for 50 years; e.g., Detroit and Baltimore. What’s wrong with their policies? Are these politicians’ policies on gun-rights also wrong?

    The RINOs won’t attack the soft underbelly of Democrat politicians; but we can and should. We have no particular ambition to win offices in Washington, State capitals or City Hall. Therefore, we need not advocate for any candidate nor oppose any Democrat incumbent. However, we can fragment the minority voting block by urging them to demand gun-rights, education-rights and other things the Democrats can’t possibly deliver. Then, the Democrats will have to consider whether they can afford to aggravate the PotG when we respond in-kind.

  13. So, how about this:
    – ‘Screw’ you
    – We won’t “discuss” the right of self-defense
    – The enemy is the Main-Stream Media
    – MSM is personified by Michael Bloomberg
    – The debate ‘forum’ is rigged against us by MSM
    – Articles are one-sided; Bloomberg’s blogs delete our posts
    – We ask crimonologists and gun experts to stop lending the Anti-MSM a veneer of even-handed-ness
    – Our forums allow Antis to post, we don’t delete their posts
    – We will cease our futal attempts to post on the Anti-boards
    – Any fair-minded person can see what we have to say on our forums which are fair
    – We’re here to have a “pissing match” with men who buys their ink by the barrel
    – We subscribe to the Civil Rights principle of non-violent civil disobediance
    – But beware, we WILL be heard (we load our own cartridges)
    – We cordially invite every Progressive politition to put his entire agenda on-the-line to oppose our rights
    – Every vulnerable member of our society, Blacks, Hispanics, women, is our natural constituent
    – Police can’t and polititions won’t protect vulnerable people
    – The inner-city is waking-up to recognizing the failure of government to protect them

  14. I always loves me some Kurt Schlichter. Maybe it’s because we’re both trial lawyers, but I tend to agree with him more often than any conservative commentator. And while I am, unlike many, concerned with how our message “plays” politically with the middle-grounders and undecideds who’ll listen to both sides, I don’t give a rats rear what the liars who don’t care about the truth think. Might as well hate ’em; they already hate all of us, anyway, and there’s no changing their minds.

  15. I think we need to point out their National Socialist and Communist Bolshevik idealism more, and how such Statist utopias lead to the sacrifice of millions of people at the altar of the despotic state.

  16. I like better the way my cousin handled a whiner about “nuclear poison!” in a discussion about Hanford: she waited quietly, then went on as though there hadn’t been an interruption. When the whiner protested, “You act like I didn’t say anything!”, my cousin responded, “You didn’t”.

    I’ve handled several impromptu gun discussions that way: some anti- will butt in with the whining, I wait, then continue as though nothing had been said. I’m unhappy, though, that none has ever handed me the line that whiner handed my cousin.

Leave a Reply

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