“I’ll be making fun of how stupid liberals are when it comes to guns” Nick the Sailor promises, “and how little they know which is why they can never get a bill passed to regulate them the way they want.” Not true. It’s not about regulation. Restriction is the goal. Period. And anti-gunners aren’t distracted by what you and I might call results. Or lack thereof. In fact, they’re inspired by their own failure. Still, you can’t have enough truthiness in the gunblogosphere.

Recommended For You

23 Responses to Stupid Sh*T Anti-Gunners Say: Just Thought I’d Leave This Here

  1. Anti-gunners are perfectly happy thinking that “clip” means the same as magazine, that “fully automatic” equates with any handgun that fires as often as you pull the trugger, and that “shoulder thing that goes up” is an adequate technical description from someone who simultaneously claims right to speak with authority about gun control. These are people who are proud of their redolent ignorance about guns which they regard as so inherently evil that even knowing about them somehow compromises their sense of moral superiority. They are, in fact, rather proud of their ignorance.

  2. Try to explain to “average” non shooter that the lever action Alder shotgun is not some new dangerous technology.

    Doctors here in Australia have some of the highest medical mistake rates in the developed world and last week started on trying to ban guns to stop suicide.

    • Misdirection. “Magicians” have been doing it since the dawn of time. While the clowns at the AMA (or the Australian version of it) are focusing your attention on guns, their doctors are killing patients while picking their pockets.

    • Holy crap. Doctors and medicine error 20% of all deaths in Australia.
      “Official Australian government reports reveal that preventable medical error in hospitals is responsible for 11% of all deaths in Australia.(1, 2), which is about 1 of every 9 deaths. If deaths from properly researched, properly registered, properly prescribed and properly used drugs were added along with preventable deaths due to private practice it comes to a staggering 19%, which is almost 1 of every 5 deaths.”

      From: http://besthealth.com.au/drugs-and-medical-errors-killing-one-of-every-five-australians/

    • Define “Crazy”. Mental health is extremely subjective, so where do you draw the line on someone who can’t own a gun? Someone who is a threat to themselves or others? Ok, and how do you define that? Who defines it? What method is there for appeal, because any attempt to limit “crazy” people from owning guns is going to hinge HEAVILY on what one psychiatrist thinks. And by the way, because of the nature of mental illness, save for the really extreme cases, you could go to two different, well-respected, intelligent, well meaning professionals and get different, even contradictory diagnoses. So, where do you draw that line, and what kinds of protection and due process is in place? In other words, how do you quantify something that is inherently subjective?

      • If a mental health professional deems an individual a potential threat to themselves or others then yeah that person shouldn’t have a gun. Of course that individual should have the right to appeal the decision.

        • John, to whom should an offended party beg to have their rights restored? At what point or on whose decision should their freedom be taken? What about their right to petition the government for redress? What about their right to live?

          I don’t defend the constitution from all enemies so you can make a man into a king. Go find another country to ruin with your progressive nonsense.

        • I am a mental health professional. I have a political agenda. I believe that Liberalism is a mental disorder.

          See the problem?

        • “mental health professional” – find a bidniz with a higher BS factor (and more dependent on guberment bucks). The flimflam professionals of the last century. I Obumer wasn’t a shyster he would have become a pshrink.

    • If crazy people can’t own guns then what is the point?

      The point is for the crazy, misfit criminal rebels to be able to unite and overthrow the ‘normal’ majority. This country was built by crazy people, for crazy people.

    • I sat next to a California Liberal on a plane recently. That woman said, and I 5hit you not, “all gun owners are crazy and should not be allowed to own guns.” She then said anyone who wants to buy a gun shoudl have to go through psychological screening.
      But she had already said that gun owners, and by extension anyone who wants to own a gun is crazy and should not be allowed to own a gun.
      She also said the if allowed to own a gun nobody should have more than one because “nobody needs more than one.”
      I put on my Bose noise canceling headphones for the rest of the flight while she and her next seat mate (who had a psychological service dog on a 6 hour flight) patted each other on the back for being oh so enlightened and glorifying in the coming trouncing of Trump by their girl Hillary.

  3. Ralph also the AMA here with the first A being Australian. Very similar policies from what I understand. My doctor’s only question re firearms is have I been hunting and do I have any spare venison. Hard to find that sort in any city areas.

    John – they will ban you from firearm ownership here for any hint of mental illness. One reason given for the high rate of suicide in rural areas is the fact that if you ask for help you could loose numerous licenses including firearms and drivers so people don’t ask. Plus very little in the way of trained help.

    • Even a “veterinarian” in Australia only has a 4 year degree. Very few DVM’s in Australia. My brother got recruited to AU from NC in the the US. At the three hospitals he worked at he was the only DVM and veterinary surgeon. He has some stories from those years. 😀
      Spinal repair on a 10 foot long Coastal Taipan

  4. Restriction is the goal, not regulation. Regulation implies proper, orderly function; when they say “regulate,” they mean “restrict to the point of uselessness.”

  5. “John, to whom should an offended party beg to have their rights restored? At what point or on whose decision should their freedom be taken? What about their right to petition the government for redress? What about their right to live?

    I don’t defend the constitution from all enemies so you can make a man into a king. Go find another country to ruin with your progressive nonsense.”

    These comments are irrational and if you think due process is begging then you don’t agree with the Constitution, much less defend it, since due process is part of the Constitution.

    “I am a mental health professional. I have a political agenda. I believe that Liberalism is a mental disorder.

    See the problem?”

    Non-sequitur.

Leave a Reply

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