The liberal-minded folks at Girl Pants Production created a series of these videos for a variety of issues: anti-Vaxxers, climate control deniers, etc. The rhetorical device upon which they depend – reductio ad absurdum – makes for some seriously sarcastic humor. It would be interesting to create a video taking the opposite position: how gun control advocates sound to normal people. “Now’s not the time to discuss gun-free zones,” an anti could pronounce as an ambulance leaves the scene of a school shooting. Too much? Probably. Still, a lot of our readers think antis are delusional to the point of mental illness. How do gun control advocates sounds to you? Rational? Irrational? Hysterical? Overbearing? What?

Recommended For You

104 Responses to Question of the Day: How Do Gun Control Advocates Sound to You?

  1. Anthony Jeselnik said (and I paraphrase), “People who get offended by comedy are the dumbest people in the world.”

    I’m not offended by the video. I’m offended by the commenters who think it’s truth.

    • He also said, “You don’t know what real pain is until your baby has drowned in a bathtub, and you definitely don’t know anything about bathing a baby.”

        • Was he the one who said, “The greatest day of my life was when I found my dad’s pornos. The worst was when I found my mom’s… in the back room of that video store.”?

    • Your choice of quote implies this video has some comedic value, which it does not. I’m not offended by it either, nor do I feel any need to reply to the commentators. Here’s a quote for them:

      “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
      -Mark Twain

  2. You know… they did have the smoking thing right…. Cigarettes don’t cause cancer, smoking them does… Exactly like a gun, it doesn’t just go off and kill people, it requires human action….

    Reminds me of the phrase: 100 monkeys typing away in a room 24x7x365 and eventually one of them will write the great American novel….

    …or is it: Even blind, arrogant, fascist squirrels will get a nut?

    • Sure, only you can use a billion monkeys for a billion years and they still won’t come up with a complete sentence much less an award-winning novel. Most monkeys are content to shit on the keyboard.

  3. Anti-Gun Advocates sound a little Hitler-Moussolini with a hint of Mao-Stalin, to me. Makes me immediately think History is not done adding to the list: Bloomberg, Clinton, Chuck Schumer, SOROS, Zuckerberg. . .

    It all ends badly for one side or the other.

    Choose sides now and be clear about it.

    IF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION WAS FOLLOWED, THERE WOULDN’T BE ANY SUCH TERM AS GUN-ADVOCATE [IN AMERICA].

    F THE PEOPLE CREATING THE INCLUSION OF SUCH TERM.
    F THEM HARD.

    • IF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION WAS FOLLOWED, THERE WOULDN’T BE ANY SUCH TERM AS GUN-ADVOCATE [IN AMERICA].

      Sure there would. But it would mean something different. Instead of meaning someone who fights the blankety-blank grabbers, it would mean someone who encourages people to take up shooting as a pastime, one who offers free training to those who cannot afford it (because it’s a good idea to be trained, not because the law would require it under a true 2A regime), someone who subsidizes or otherwise aids shooting ranges….

      • Like Thomas Jefferson said:

        “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.”
        –Thomas Jefferson, letter to his fifteen-year-old nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

  4. Brainwashed, brain dead, ideologues. The sincere ones work from a position of emotion and faith in their belief structure. The one’s with money or power all work from an agenda and are simply liars.

    • Gee, second video make a good case for the antis are domestic terrorists. Don’t know of any 2nd amendment supporters calling for harming individuals whom they do not agree with.

  5. The leadership lately sounds hysterical and desperate. The rank-and-file sounds either similarly hysterical or incredibly naïve and misinformed.

  6. That’s funny because anti human rights people sound like a huge queef when I hear them.

    For the life of me I will never understand why people are fighting to RELINQUISH their rights.
    I thought it was supposed to be the other way around..????

    • You killed me….still laughing. Cannot remember last time I came across “queef” ……..in writing.

      Last time came across in real life………wish to forget.

  7. They sound as unintelligent as the people in that video.
    I find it difficult to bend down to that level. It hurts.
    I try, because I think it’s important to understand the mentally disturbed.

    • You give them too much credit. The people who came up with that putatively anti-gun “domestic violence” ad that had the harpies on The View heading for the gun shop are not “artistically geniuses”; nor are the idiots who came up with that “kid steals mom’s gun and throws it down on teacher’s desk” vid, nor are the poor doofuses who did that “interpretive dance to end gun violence” foolishness. Heck, I could go on forever in that vein…

  8. Runs the spectrum from hysterical whiny beeches (MDA, Everytown, average Dem politician…) to off their meds bat poop crazy at worst (CSGV, Brady bunch, ARS)

  9. Here’s the thing about “fire safety” or the equivalent “gun safety”. The analogy to guns is the NRA is teaching people how to build and use fires safely, and the anti-gun people want fire limited to government employees only. I know which I’d prefer.

    • This is a really good comment; I plan on borrowing this if you don’t mind. Along the same lines of: “Well, just get an alarm system and better locks.” Yeah, because crime only happens in one’s house? No, a house alarm can alert the homeowner (and possibly the police IF you don’t give the “safe word” when ADT or whomever calls) to a problem, but an armed homeowner can address the problem (protect one’s self and loved ones) until the police arrive. Out on the street or downtown? ADT doesn’t offer that kind of protection–and personal escorts can be cost prohibitive. The armed kind, of course.

    • You just want a fire extinguisher so you can play out your firefighting fantasies. If you want a fire extinguisher so bad, you should join the fire department! It’s a known fact a fire extinguisher in your home is more likely to be used against you than be used to extinguish a fire anyway. And only the fire department and military should have sprinkler systems!

      • You have a fire extinguisher because you are trying to compensate for your small penis. Yes, the same applies to women as well.

  10. “We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.” – Feinstein thinking hunting humans is legal

    “If you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.” – Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) not understanding that magazines can be reloaded

  11. Many sound like sheep: happy to graze, take no responsibility for their own lives, do no critical or independent thinking, and blindly follow the commands of their master.

    Others sound like Useful Idiots.

    And the most dangerous ones sound like wanna-be tyrants.

    • Guess they don’t realize that “sheep” get sheared; or worse yet, turned into mutton and lamb chops!

      “Inside every Liberal is a Tyrant screaming to get out.”
      –Fractals ‘R Us, Mar 24, 2014

    • I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent — their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy — they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent — he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.

      -Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord

  12. Well, Matt best just put up a pretty good impression on his Facebook page. And before you try and stir the pot again by claiming it’s homophobic, they flat out say it’s aimed at hipsters.

  13. Speaking of facts vs propanda by the gun controlling Left – here is something useful-
    the facts- that 63% of Americans think mass shootings stem from mental health problems,
    vs 23% from inadequate gun control laws, from AWB Hawkins.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/26/gun-control-americans-overwhelmingly-blame-mental-health-failures-for-mass-shootings/

    H/t Breitbart: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/26/poll-2-3-americans-say-focus-mental-health-not-gun-control/

  14. Anybody that cannot understand that criminals do not obey laws, and that dumb laws only prohibit the average citizen from defending themselves, is a complete idiot!

  15. Gun-grabbers trust us to observe “no guns” signs but they don’t trust us to refrain from assaulting them.

    Gun-grabbers claim that making us weak (disarming us) makes us stronger.

    Gun-grabbers claim that we shouldn’t carry a handgun because a criminal will just take it away from us — and that we should do whatever an armed criminal demands of us because we could never take their gun away from them.

    Gun-grabbers claim that reducing our options for how we can respond to a violent attack improves our chances of surviving a violent attack.

    Gun-grabbers claim that concealed carry licensees are exceedingly dangerous, seething cauldrons of rage that will explode at the slightest provocation — even though concealed carry licensees commit violent crimes at a lower rate than law enforcement officers.

    Gun-grabbers claim that there will be Wild West shootouts and rivers of blood in our streets whenever someone proposes legislation to repeal unconstitutional firearm laws — of course the shootouts and rivers of blood have yet to happen after more than 30 years of repealing unconstitutional firearm laws across our nation.

    Gun-grabbers claim that we will finally “get guns off the streets” if we can just pass more laws, even though government doesn’t enforce firearm laws already on the books.

    Gun-grabbers claim that we are awash in an epidemic of violent assaults and murders with firearms even though our violent crime rate (with all weapons) is at a 50 year low.

    Gun-grabbers claim that more guns guarantees more crime, even though our violent crime rate is the lowest rate in the last 50 years and the number of firearms in our nation has more than doubled over that period of time.

    Every single assertion that gun-grabbers put forth is absolutely opposite of readily observable reality. I can therefore only draw one of two conclusions:
    (a) gun-grabbers are clinically hysterical or insane people, or
    (b) gun-grabbers are evil people who want to disarm us so that they can use, abuse, consume, and exploit us for their own selfish gain.

  16. If an organization called “Girl Pants Production” considered me normal, I think I would need to stop and examine my life more carefully.

  17. illogical and emotions based, uninformed and/or willing to repeat the same mistruths repeatedly enough to make them feel true to themselves.

    Those in charge of these people sound like power grabbers who just want to get a bigger share of what they have.

  18. Up here in Canada, they are by turns ignorant, fearful, and malicious. Most of them don’t know the laws that already exist, few of them know how a gun works or have used a gun, and a smaller but vocal contingent are just scared for no good reason. A lot of it comes from living in their own heads, rather than paying attention to what is really going on outside. The final group seems to enjoy little acts of cruelty, taking away someone’s hobby just because the power trip feels good.

    But really, those groups are just the foot-soldiers. The real folks to be worried about are the big men at the top, who have their own specific agenda. They aren’t living in their own minds, they aren’t scared, they probably are wantonly cruel, but they have their own larger goals, and disarmament is key among them.

    And a reminder (in case you needed one)- yes, gun controllers really are after all your guns. Yes, even granpa’s old 16 gauge.

  19. Frist off…According to a CDC reporthttp://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf page 57 there were 33,636 firearm deaths in 2013 in the United States.
    21,175 were suicides. A ton of training in “Gun Safety” would not prevent any of those. So right of the bat, having all gun owners being “highly trained” will do nothing to prevent the majority of gun deaths. Killing yourself has nothing to do with accurate shooting or safety as by definition if you are going to kill yourself you aren’t concerned about safety.
    11,208 deaths were homicide. Again, people murdering other people isn’t a result of not being accurate with a gun or being safe with one. By definition murderers want to be dangerous with their weapons not safe. Also, by definition criminals ignore laws so having laws limiting gun ownership to those who were “highly trained” would have no affect on these deaths as criminals would just ignore those laws.
    467 were legal intervention/war(ie self defense) so those people obviously were accurate with their weapons and safely employed them to protect themselves.
    281 were undetermined.
    The final 505 were accidental. Now these are really the ONLY ones where safety training, etc might have saved some lives. But I would argue that many of these deaths happened to people who went through the training and still ignored the rules(just like police who are supposed to be so highly trained yet shoot themselves cleaning their guns, or hunters who went through hunter’s safety course, etc). And I would also argue that many of these people even if required to go through rigorous training would still ignore the rules or just be human and make mistakes. So let’s be generous and say half of these people could have been saved through better training. That would mean that implementing very tough laws putting all gun owners through rigorous courses, etc ensuring they were “highly trained” would cut the gun deaths in this country by .0074%. A number so small as to be statistically insignificant.

    So considering ALL of the above let’s look at points raised by the video:

    Discussing fire safety after fire-Safety statistically has almost NOTHING to do with firearm deaths. When there’s a murder(or mass murder) all of the laws discussed also have nothing to do with safety. Also, in almost EVERY case they would have done nothing to prevent the shooting(ie the killers went through the background checks, etc etc). Perhaps a more honest comparison would be the discussion of banning matches, lighters, flammable material, etc after a fire.
    Snow shovel in summer/Southern California-Statistically there is zero change of a blizzard in L.A. Depending on where you live, there is a MUCH higher chance of being a victim of a crime. Also, one could use the same argument for wearing a seat belt or life-preserver.
    If we outlaw murder only criminals will murder-HUH? By definition murder IS the CRIMINAL ACT of killing. A person who kills in self-defense does not commit murder and thus is not a criminal. I think what they were going for is “Why bother making something illegal as criminals will just ignore it by definition”. Thing is, we really don’t make things illegal because of deterenance…we do it so we can punish/lockup people. Just as making alcohol illegal during prohibition did NOTHING to limit it booze.
    Drink as defense against drunk driver-THere is no logical way a gin and tonic in my system will defend me from a drunk driver. There is a VERY logical way a gun will defend me from a criminal…I can shoot the criminal and stop the threat. It’s why POLICE OFFICERS carry guns.
    Training and flying a plane-See above. Training has almost ZERO to do with gun deaths. It’s very simple to use a gun(not so flying a plane).
    Taxing the rich and the rich finding loopholes-First, the purpose of taxing isn’t to discourage making money it is to generate revenue. The purpose to most gun laws is to discourage gun ownership and kill the culture. Second, tax laws are effective in generating that revenue. Gun laws do NOTHING to address almost all gun killings. When you factor out the suicide most are murders(and most of those gang/drug related). Almost NONE of those people will pay any more attention to new gun laws as they do the current ones.
    cigarettes don’t cause cancer..smoking does-Actually, that is correct. It’s the ACT of smoking that causes cancer. If you don’t light up, you don’t get cancer. There is also no historical or Constitutional right to cigarettes…no do cigarettes provide basic rights(such as the ability to defend oneself).
    If the lease says a pet I can own a bear–the old “If you can own a rifle then you can own a nuke” argument. There is an accepted definition of “arms” as those weapons a single person can carry and use. Also, a weapon that can effectively be used to engage an attacker without destroying a city block. Nukes don’t fall under that. And neither do Bears as pets. The legal and accepted definition of “pets” in leases are dog, cats, and other small animals.
    We can’t get rid of AIDS because too many people have it-AIDS is a disease that has no benefit to the person who has it or society. Guns are not…period. There are 300+million guns int his country, the VAST majority of which are used legally and peacefully. An incredibly small percentage are used in crimes. EVERY SINGLE case of AIDS kills or hurts the person who has it. There is no comparison

  20. How Do Gun Control Advocates Sound to You
    A gun is common item to me. Nothing special and nothing unique or scary. Certainly can be dangerous, but none of my guns kill anyone. This is how they sometimes sound to me with analogy to the video’s own shovel analogy.

    We need common sense shovel control. Shovels are killing people. It’s the shovel stupid. If we ban shovels, no one will die by shovel violence.

    If only we banned all alcohol, then he would have been safe from drunk drivers.

    Being “Gay” does not mean being happy – It means homosexual. And the word “gay” has always had this meaning (in reference to “well regulated”).

    You and the national shovel association are terrorists. Where is my right to freedom from shovel violence?

    More shovels means more shovel violence! More shovels means more shovel suicides!

    We have too many shovels in the US already.

    We need to ban shovels that have too sharp a blade, too long a handle, those made of black plastic, and those with a handle grip on the ends. More common sense assault shovel control is needed.

    The Best way to ensure that shovels are not used improperly is to restrict them to official roadway and construction workers.

    We need common sense background checks for all shovel sales and to close the shovel show loophole.

    The states with the higher shovel ownership have more shovel violence.

    If it safes one life – one life at all – in any case – we should do it – Ban shovels.

    You don’t need a drilling auger – you can use a small garden shovel.

    • Military-style concealable folding assault trench-shovels are built for war and only exist to kill as many people as possible. Civilians don’t need these.

  21. Many people have the attitude that anything they like should be subsidized or even required. Anything they dislike should be prohibited. Anything they don’t care about can be tolerated but, if someone else doesn’t like it, they won’t object to its prohibition. Everyone should be forced to be like them. In that respect they are like ISIS. Different agenda but the same mindset.

  22. When would legislation of this type make you less likely to be a victim? A month after? A year? 10 years?

    Fatalities by someone with a firearm is about 30,000 Americans annually. Vehicle fatalities are 40,000 annually. Medical Malpractice fatalities are 90,000 annually. Please do videos concerning those issues.

    Yet, Healthcare or Vehicles are more likely to kill you than somebody with a firearm. Any reasonable person would say this is a prioritization issue.

  23. Cowardly, hysterical, and uncaring.

    Most arguments come down to “I’d be scared if there were guns around!”

    Second most common I encounter is “Some legal carrier might ‘snap’ and pop off at people!”

    The uncaring part is made evident when I describe how I am safe and sound and alive, a gal I know is safe and sound and alive, and a bunch of kids I know are safe and sound and alive, because my gun deterred a violent assailant, a gun stopped the gal’s rapist, and a gun chased off a child-molester — and they insist none of us in those situations should have had guns. Then they refuse to admit that they are saying that they prefer that I should have been assaulted, the gal should have been raped, and the children should have been molested!

  24. They sound like hysterical children trying to convince you that their imaginary friends are real after shotgunning a bunch of mountain dew. Their noise draws attention, and it doesn’t matter how much irrefutable contradictory evidence you show them in a calm, coherent manor, it just makes them shriek louder. They’re full on divas and YOU WILL LISTEN TO THEM, DAMMIT! Their tenacity and commitment would almost be admirable if they were to apply it to something meaningful, instead of destroying a Human right.

  25. One of the ones that bothers me the most is when someone says something like “Well why outlaw murder since the criminals will murder anyway?” That is a moronic statement considering that the right to bear arms is a Constitutionally protected right and last I checked, murder is not.

    The other thing that bothers me is the fact that nearly all gun grabbers/ antis are pro-abortion, which kills several times more babies per year than all gun related deaths combined over the last several years. What hypocrites.

    • I disagree with you on the “Well why outlaw murder since the criminals will murder anyway?” front. It’s a logical question. Why are laws against murder okay when laws against gun ownership are not?

      Well there’s about a million ways to answer that. I’m not sure you can answer it to their satisfaction, though. They will stop listening to you when they think they have “won” this point.

      What’s sad is you can do the same to them with some real poignant honest questions, but most people will just fall back to “well I don’t like guns and something must be done”. Which you can’t really change for them. It has to come from within. It’s my hope I can get better at leading people to that change, though. Since it’s obvious that gun control is a complete and utter failure and that guns are a net win in society.

      • I’m not sure if my point came across in my post. Laws against murder are OK because it is not a Constitutionally protected right, and it is wrong on every level, no matter your vantage point. There’s no question that murder is wrong. What I meant was the right to bear arms is a Constitutionally protected right, and murder is not. Therefore, you can’t compare the two like antis like to do (i.e., when an anti says “why make a law against murder when a criminal is just going to do it anyway”). Murdering is wrong, not a Constitutionally protected right (of course) and is therefore punishable by law. There’s nothing protecting murder like there is a document protecting the right to bear arms. So, its OK to make laws against murder because by definition, you are only making laws against criminals as one is a criminal who commits murder. Having strict gun laws (or, I guess any gun laws for that matter) infringes on the 2nd amendment and on millions of law abiding citizens, not criminals, therefore, some could argue that gun laws are unconstitutional.

  26. Bet they won’t post where they live! must be hell to be afraid of your own shadow or the big bad scary guy down the street just cuz he looks mean and drives a work in progress down the street!!
    I feel sorry for these two never getting facts straight, must of made their teacher happy! pass them at any cost works} Saddest of of is it seems that they actually believe the Hyperbole spewing forth out of their faces!

  27. It’s hard to make blanket statements. But they all sound like people who have a long ways to go. Some of them can be helped along. Many just sound like selfish cowardly sheep beseeching the all powerful and ever virtuous government to provide for them. Which it will. Just never in the way that they really need.

  28. Am I the only one who was mislead by the headline? Or did i read it wrong? The video is how Gun Advocates sound to ‘normal’ people, not anti-gun advocates.

  29. The human brain can be divided into the Reptilian Complex and the Paleomammalian complex. The first controls life functions and species survival while the second does stuff like figure out how many apples Tim has if he had three and Sally gives him two. The R-Complex engages if a threat to the individual or the individual’s offspring is perceived, to the exclusion of all other thought. If a mother sees a car speeding toward her child, she only focuses on saving her child regardless of what was on her mind at the time. When the R-Complex kicks in, it overwhelms the rational brain immediately and filters all information to the rational brain subconsciously. Thus, “for the children.” No matter how logical the argument, or how powerful the facts, if the public is convinced that there is an existential threat to their offspring, they will refuse to believe all the facts and figures in the world. The antis shaping their campaign know this, most of them are in the business of knowing and applying this stuff. That’s what’s going on here.

  30. “How do gun control advocates sounds to you? Rational? Irrational? Hysterical? Overbearing?”

    My answer is yes to the last three of the above.

  31. The YouTube comments section is open! I posted this:

    Ok, gun control advocates – ready to lose? Most cops shoot 50 rounds per month or less for training purposes. Go ahead, ask ’em. Competition shooters shoot 10 times that or more. I can draw from a holster and fire three shots on a CQB target in less than 2 seconds. A typical police response time in an urban area is 5-15 minutes. Nationally, police shoot the wrong person in approximately 11% of all shootings. Civilians shoot the wrong person in about 2% of shootings. Concealed carry permit holders have an arrest rate even lower than that of police officers. Conservative estimates of defensive gun uses in the US run in excess of 100K per year. There are even grandmothers with just about zero training defending their homes from home invaders: http://bearingarms.com/alabama-grandmother-shoots-burglar-head/

    Stats are from TTAG stat page: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/gun-facts/

    So if an active shooter every visits your work or school, you can cower under a desk with all of your sarcasm and wit. Maybe throw a textbook. I’ll be returning fire. Which do you think is more effective?

  32. When I’m in a charitable mood, I’d say they sound uneducated, misinformed, and misled.

    The rest of the time, the phrase “screeching retards” comes to mind.

  33. In a word: desperate. Gun control advocates are constantly calling to do something, but that something is often undefined. When anyone presents an idea, no matter what that idea is, they jump on it, and support it – until that idea is thoroughly destroyed. Once the idea is destroyed, they jump ship to whatever idea comes along next. Rinse and repeat.

    I think most gun control advocates have good intentions and honestly want to stop violence, but you know the old the saying about good intentions and the road to hell.

  34. Oh, my. This is a form of “those people” argument: “No need to listen to them, because they are just such tacky people. Er, un-people.”

    That’s one way to get what you want when you’ve been losing the argument on the merits. That is until your victims notice what you are doing. The thing is, mocking people into submission only works if they care about your opinion. Imagine telling these fine folks how little you care for their good opinion of you? (And always, playing for the audience, who are the real “audience” for this mockery directed at gun advocates. You play for the audience too.)

    Though desperate, this is also dangerous. Anyone who gets “Those People”-ed should be careful. Once you are “un-people”, they can do anything they want to you. To us. Not OK. It also gives *the audience* to do anything they want to these un-people. Take their stuff. Keep them from voting. Worse. (This has all happened before.)

    Meet the un-people-ing before it gets started:

    – Decline to accept the premises in the “argument”, at least these: the reductio is in fact absurdum, the analogy holds, holding one position implies holding the other, the slippery slope (“reductio”) in fact applies.

    – Note the interpersonal positioning: “Hey, why should I bother talking with you, mocking me as an un-person? I don’t believe in un-people, myself. I do know better than to deal with anyone who treats me that way.”

    – A bit more pointed: “Along with being obnoxious, attempting to mock people into submission only works if they care about your opinion.”

    – Call out the relationship: “I think I count, so if you can’t be bothered to convince me, force is your only option to get your way. Bring guns. (Or, are you trying to convince anybody who may be listening that I’m an un-person? I wonder if they’ll let you shoot me to get your way?)”

    – And the kicker: “BTW, people who’d rather coerce than convince are why citizens should be able to go armed … to protect themselves from people like you.”

  35. That was pretty painful to watch. The comparisons aren’t even valid, except this one because I don’t even think they realize they made the argument here. “Cigarettes don’t cause cancer. Smoking them does.” Well duh. No one forces her to smoke…. Yeah, painful.

  36. The gun control “advocates” sound like the Hitler youth must have sounded to the war weary German, hyper-emotional and irrational. When does the idea that a gun can do anything without an operator manning the controls come into the thought process? I have owned firearms for the great majority of my 60+ years and I have never seen a gun, loaded with a round chambered, do anything but lay peacefully until interacted with by an operator. Only one time have I seen anything close to what is commonly described and that was when a modified semi-automatic, sear had been filed by the owner, was dropped on its hammer and it fired into the air. Pretty scary but it was not the fault of the gun but the idiot that was playing with a loaded modified semi-automatic and being very stupid during the play.
    I will keep my firearms for hunting and self protection thanks. I have a big-game, deer and elk, rifle, a turkey gun (18″ 12 gauge pump) and a .40 cal semi automatic. I have had them for many years and never had even a mishap with one and only once did I think that I needed one for my safety, but that is the point isn’t it? If I need one for personal safety I doubt anyone would find out about it unless someone gets dead.

  37. “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

    Ronald Reagan

  38. Gun control activists either sound like overbearing authority figures (“We know what’s best. Our word is law. You know nothing. You ARE nothing. You have NO VOICE, AND NO CHOICE. OBEY.) or emotional and irresponsible teenagers (“EW, why do you need that evil gun? It’s not my job to deal with bad guys, don’t you know that guns KILL people? I don’t need a gun, if something goes wrong I’ll call someone else to deal with it, besides, odds are I’ll never need it. You’re crazy if you want something like that.”)

    In both cases I just point out that if they are truly advocating for gun confiscation then they are advocating civil war. We will not go quietly. I then tune them out and keep moving. There is nothing productive to be gained from discourse. No amount of logic, facts, or argument will convince them. The only thing I can do is leave the impression that I, at least, will not be turning in my rights to become a subject in their utopia.

    Molon Labe.

  39. I refuse to click the link and add a single view to that video. No reason to give those assholes anything to be proud about.

  40. Imagine a kid at a petting zoo. Wants to pet all the fluffy animals and wants to learn all about them. Then out comes the lizard. That kid refuses to touch it or learn anything about it. In fact, runs away from it screaming. That’s how they sound to me.

  41. They sound as if they think life is a movie, one which they can write and re-write the script to fit the ending they’ve already chosen.

    If they would only click their heels together three times and think positive thoughts, they can bring Tinkerbelle back to life.

Leave a Reply

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