Previous Post
Next Post

There’s many reasons why I don’t like the people behind the gun control movement, even on a personal level. But one of the biggest reasons is that they don’t accept any criticism or opposition to their position. Their beliefs are the right and true ones, and any argument to the contrary is regarded as a personal betrayal and instantly banished. In order to try and understand the other side and see if they ever make a good point (hint: still waiting), I’m a member of many gun control advocacy forums — just lurking in the background, watching. One, a would-be subreddit forum, /r/guncontrol, failed to get off the ground. Since it didn’t get any followers and crashed, I don’t mind broadcasting the fact that I was watching. But its draconian rules are a perfect example. Their rules mimic the majority of other gun control advocacy groups’ forums, and give a good insight into the way the other side thinks . . .

The forum, that’s still limping a long, believes that they’re the victim of a deliberate campaign to overload their area with pro-gun posts or criticism of their policies. They don’t consider for a second that it might just be that their minority view might be wrong and the pro-gun people are trying to help. No, they are always the victim. To combat this perceived onslaught, they implemented a rule that identified pro-gun posters will be banned if they are too vocal. From the rules:

You will be banned if:

  • You make a pro-gun argument, and any one of the following apply:
  • Use an account less than a month old;
  • Use an account with less than 15,000 in comment karma; [ED: a metric of the popularity of previous posts]
  • Post in more than one thread per day (within 24 hours of your last post).

You can come in with an alt[ernate account]! But you can’t use it to make a pro-gun proliferation joke, point, or question.

So, they don’t want people making any pro-gun points. They only want people to post opinions that match their own point of view, and will accept no debate or discussion on the topic. Theirs is the right way, and they will tolerate only a small contribution from the wrong people.

In furtherance of that goal, they specifically banned any posts from pro-gun people asking them to defend their positions. Not only have they banned any posts arguing with their point of view, they don’t even want to have to defend it. Apparently this is a logic free zone and they like it that way.


Posted by a gun nut and usually prefaced with, “Honest question”, “Looking for an opinion”, “Just curious why you feel this way, looking for a rational discussion.” And then followed by the OP arguing and posting 40-50 times. We get too many of these.

Yup, they really don’t like debate. But not only will they not tolerate any comments that are against their position, they outright ban any news sources that they disagree with. I’m actually kinda proud that we made the list, though.

Linking to nutter sources like Glenn Bleck’s theblaze, Fox news,,,, or other “bubble” sources is not permitted. The posts will be removed and may result in a ban.

And that’s their modus opperandi: silencing the opposition. They don’t want anyone to question their pro-gun control views, and they won’t accept any debate on the subject. They don’t respect the Second Amendment and they feel the same way about the First. Their authoritarian, nanny-state supporting nature comes out in full force, and they can’t help it. They’re superior and will not hear any argument to the contrary.

Every time there’s an incident involving firearms, I always take the opportunity to re-examine my own beliefs. Would new laws have stopped this latest tragedy? Is there something inherently dangerous about the AR-15? Is a ban on “high capacity magazines” really a good idea? As Robert can attest, in the days following the Newtown shooting I was reluctant to write anything about these topics because I was still in the process of chugging through the data. But the one point that always starts me back down the path to being a vocal supporter of gun rights is the idea that if the gun control advocates’ position is correct, why can’t it stand any criticism? Why are their YouTube comments always closed? Why is there never an actual “conversation?”

That’s something that I love about the gun rights community; that the comments sections are always open. We foster debate, accept criticism, and when someone goes off the deep end and stops making logical sense we let them know. It’s a more honest way of conducting ourselves, and to my mind gives gun rights people more credibility.

Previous Post
Next Post


      • Name calling shows a lack of intelligence and maturity. It makes a person look like an idiot. And the other side has already won the argument. By considering the source.

      • Find us an anti-gun forum that encourages debate and allows members to make effective counterpoints or rebuttals and I might take your mealy-mouthed equivocation a little more seriously.


        • He didn’t say he had gun-control forums that are open, he said that the echo chamber isn’t just on the left side.

          But I don’t know what he’s talking about, it’s not like someone would get fired from a gun publication for writing a dissenting article or anything.


          (note: it’s laudable that ttag doesn’t ban those that disagree)

        • What he said is true, you should probably understand it before mouthing off.

          Right wing pro-gun forums are every bit as bad as left wing anti-gun forums. They’ll ban you for disagreeing with them, and they’re just waiting for you to do anything they can try to use to justify a ban.

          That’s because people are stupid morons who can’t handle being told they’re wrong.

        • Look, I don’t even give part of a shit about that; I said find me ONE anti-gun forum that serves as an analogue to TTAG, where everyone is allowed to make their case equally. If you can do that, I still won’t apologize to you, but at least your whining will be a little more justified.

          Now, you think you can find one, or did you not understand?

        • Metcalf wasn’t fired for expressing a divergent view on a forum. He was fired for justifying his suggestions based on an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that was in open conflict with current SCOTUS case law, without bothering to note it, in a publication whose advertisers are trying to sell the kinds of guns people actually want to buy.

          There are regulatory positions which would meet little opposition. I’ll give you one: In the states whose law I am familiar with, the home of a person on probation is liable to search without cause. How often is this fact taken advantage of by local or county police? Almost never. Why not? There are others, but one is enough for the moment.

        • — maybe.

          Almost all of their diarists are anti-gun at some level, but from what I’ve seen (though I can’t stomach the place for long), they have some pretty lively arguments with people from our side in the comment sections.

          Still, they’re a liberal echo chamber kind of like TTAG is a pro-2A echo chamber. We have a range of opinions, and nobody gets banned for disagreeing, but you don’t really see anyone commenting (and especially not writing articles) who isn’t already basically on board with the whole gun thing.

        • Tribalism is the state of being organized in or advocating for, a tribe or tribes. In terms of conformity, tribalism may also refer to a way of thinking or behaving in which people are more loyal to their tribe than to their friends, their country, or any other social group.

          An echo chamber is a situation in which information, ideas, or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by transmission inside an “enclosed” space, often drowning out outside views.

          And I can simply throw the question back into your face. Point out a Pro-Gun Forum that promotes any discussion on reasonable restrictions on firearms that actually make sense.

          Now there aren’t many reasonable restrictions out there, but point still stands.

          Yes, the screaming bloody-shirt waving by the anti’s is disgusting, but the Pro community doesn’t do enough to encourage ownership to people outside of their comfortable political spectrum.

        • Whata bout that MikeB3000, trollin around here? He was here for ages, not so much any more. His opinions were discussed, highlighted, argued, to high hell and back. As far as I know, he’s not banned. It’s not often these antis come to this side of the woods and pitch an argument.

          Again, logic goes in one ear and out the other.

          I’m always open to debate. But when antis start to talk about logical fallacies, and utopian societies, stating a problem and not providing a viable solution, or any solution for that matter, the conversation quickly deteriorates.

        • @Lucas D.
          I think you’ve proven his point by throwing a minor tantrum over even a minor criticism of our own side. And it’s true, small minded hostility is not limited to the left. And when you disagree with someone I think it’s better to try and convince them that they are wrong rather than becoming hostile, accusing them of treason or any of the other silliness internet are famous for.

      • If you speak the truth and your argument and your logic hold up under scrutiny and in open debate, and people agree with and repeat your truthful assertions, does that constitute an “echo chamber?”

        Regardless of how many people agree with and repeat an idea, if the point under discussion is still open to debate and reconsideration, it is NOT an echo chamber.

        • Absolutely correct. Is it our fault that the antis don’t stay around here for long? They are never kept out. In fact, we love having them. We thrive on open debate. Is it our fault that reason and logic send them running? I think not. its simply the nature of things. When the light gets too bright, the roaches must find darkness in which to hide.

          • Is it just me? Or does anyone think it odd that three foundlings wandered into the room at the same time?

    • That is because Liberals, literally, have brain damage. Their amygdala, which controls the emotional reaction of the body to outside stimulus, is under-developed. Thus they cannot process data that is outside their already-integrated mindset.

      You don’t have to believe me. Believe 1. Peer-reviewed studies show the the liberal brain and the conservative brain are indeed different in this area (, 2. The Amygdala is the “flight or fight” response center of the brain and can suffer from lack of exercise and without it, is subject to “hijack” (

      How did I learn all of this? Read the amazing analysis and manual on “how to debate Liberals” at the Anonymous Conservative – r/K selection theory of evolutionary psychology and its relation to our current political system.

      Everything you know about Liberals, explained, for once and for all. Understand them and beat them.

      Debate tactics

      r/K Selection Theory

      • Can you not appreciate that you’ve just equated brain”underdevelopment” with “brain damage”? You do understand that an “underdeveloped” penis is not “damaged”, right?

        • Hello, this is my first time to this site. I’m pro gun, only to an extent . I don’t approve of assault weapons for the public. I do approve of gun registration. It will help the L. E. A. keep tract of guns and a ban on assault weapons will help keep the police alive. As the bullets from these guns will penetrate a police vests. The police have stated that these weapons are only designed for one purpose and that’s to kill other people. I believe in supporting L.E.A.

    • How to debate Liberals: Calmly and carefully introdue an amygdala hijack to their system, over and over:

      “Now as we have written, when you are debating a Liberal, the key is to present several stimuli to them, which will be flagged by their amygdala, and produce the uncomfortable aversive stimulus they are so terrified of. Lock eye contact to load up their amygdala, out-group them with the crowd, diminish their status in the eyes of observers, present to them an image of inevitable defeat, highlight how much better and easier someone else has it, highlight how frustrated they must be at some failure, show how logic boxes them in and makes them look stupid, etc. As you are doing this, you want to be the exact opposite of R. Lee Ermey. You do not want to draw their amygdala’s attention away from these stimuli with big showy displays of emotion, anger, or elaborate physical gestures. You want their full concentration on what you present to them.

      You want to be the hypnotist, calmly giving their amygdala nothing to focus upon, except their amygdala hijack, as you present hijack after hijack. They will instinctually counter this by trying to make you grow emotional. They will yell, and rage. They will say insanely insulting things. They will try to demean you. They will grow ever more agitated. They want you to engage them and get emotional. This may even be a conditioned behavior they developed through experience. Begin the yelling, to precipitate an emotional outburst in their opponent and that will shift their own amygdala’s focus, offering them some relief. I can’t say for certain, I just know they all will do it, and if you get emotional in response, they will immediately look physically relieved.”

      The Anonymous Conservative:

      • I get it! “Defeat” a liberal by being as smug as he is! Satisfying, isn’t it?

        Yes, Mina… I read it. All of it. I’m not disagreeing with you, exactly. I’m just pointing out that there’s a price to be paid by being underhanded against an underhanded individual.

    • “They don’t want anyone to question their pro-gun control views, and they won’t accept any debate on the subject. They don’t respect the Second Amendment and they feel the same way about the First. Their authoritarian, nanny-state supporting nature comes out in full force, and they can’t help it. They’re superior and will not hear any argument to the contrary.”

      And that mindset clearly demonstrates that the 2nd Amendment is not “outdated” – it is as relevant to stopping the authoritarian “progressives” as it was to the people who fought George III.

    • I’ve been banned from a liberal website too, and I’m a very left liberal. When I spoke up about the Colorado recall and the lesson we ought to learn about the right to bear arms, I got banned.

      To be fair, I’ve been to a conservative website to find out if I would get banned there too.

      • They’re just the two wings of the same statist bird. The real battle isn’t between the party of “gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme” and the party of “kill kill kill kill kill”. The real battle is between Freedom and Tyranny.

      • You’re welcome to hang here, Wassim. We’re more apt to bite each other than to bite you. We like to play.

    • Its not a question of gun control its litterly a right in the constitution that says and i quote “right to bear arms” and dont say they didn’t think about the guns we have now they had more than just muskets they were rare but other guns were there. its a thing about more background checks and physiological checks when they go to buy them. And if i go through the trouble to get a licences to get a fricken ak-47 if i want. And did u know on average pizza arrives faster than the cops and u want we to give up my gun, NO THANKS F ODFFgenerally is valid for a set time, sometimes only for a few minutes or hours. If users do not sign in during this time limit, they must repeat the process and request another verification code.generally is valid for a set time, sometimes only for a few minutes or hours. If users do not sign in during this time limit, they must repeat the process and request another verification code. and pizza arrives faster than cops and u want me to give up guns. F OFF.

  1. And you know “they” are lurking here, but one does wonder why so few of them post?


    But what are they afraid of?

    • they are afraid that if they engage in a dialogue, they may end up being convinced . . . . or that they enjoy my personally private fantasies about Shannon Watts(TM)(aka SUNSHINE) and deep down, would be willing to pay for the live feed of our night on the town. 🙂

      • You very well may have the right of it Sir.

        I wonder what she sleeps in?

        And what size shoe do you think she wears?

      • They are afraid of withdrawl. I’m sure you’re all familiar with the Savage line “liberalism is a mental disorder.” Well, I think I’ve figured out which one it is.

        Liberal arguments are all based on emotional response and it occurred to me that the beliefs themselves are based on emotional satisfaction. It’s satisfying to believe that you can fix all of the worlds problems instead of accepting the cold, hard reality that no matter how hard you try, bad things will still happen, inequity will still exist, and life will still be unfair. It’s emotionally satisfying to have a discussion with peers and everyone agrees with everything, instead of being a conservative and finding points of contention with many other conservatives on varying points, after all, conservatives (and not all of us here are) really only agree with each other in comparison to how much we disagree with liberals. It’s emotionally satisfying to be a liberal.

        It is my understanding that emotional satisfaction comes with a release of dopamine in the brain (and maybe seratonin?). Dopamine is the same brain chemical that causes the high that comes from narcotics. It’s the release of dopamine that addicts are chasing. It is my pet theory that liberals, at least the particularly rabid ones, are addicts. They are addicted to the dopamine release that agreeing with other liberals gives them. I think this is why they get so angry and mean when a conservative disagrees with them, we are denying them their high.

        Are there any mental health professionals among us who would care to weigh in? Is there something about addiction I’m missing or have wrong? My knowledge of addiction brain chemistry mostly comes from Dr. Drew in the pre HLN days, circa Adam Corolla’s co-hosting. I’ve known former/recovering addicts, but never witnessed the darkest of the behavior myself, I’ve only had them tell me how bad they used to be.

        I wonder if a study could be done to see if the brain chemistry of a liberal compares to addiction, or maybe an MRI scan while the subject listens to various talking points from both sides and also while they state their beliefs while someone agrees with them and while someone refutes them.

        I hope I’m wrong because the only way for an addict to recover seems to be to hit rock bottom, and the only way for a political ideology to hit rock bottom is to take the country with it.

        (Jesus, I get wordy)

        • @Marcus,

          Do you cheat and take that out of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Manual


          Because it sure sound the correct diagnostic and description of problem

          • I’m not certain it’s literally a “mental disorder”, but there sure is hell SOMETHING wrong with ’em.

            I more or less decided to call it a “cognitive disorder”; that’s to say, they may not have specifically something wrong with their minds, in a sanity/insanity way, but there is a seriously out-of-whack cognition going on. They’re not seeing things the way they really are, and, as a result, it’s practically impossible for them to work out the proper response and solution.

            • Everybody knows about the blind spot in the eye, right? Well, I posit that people have a very similar thing going on in their brain, only with thoughts/beliefs instead of images. They literally can’t see the fact, right in front of their face that the mass shootings take place in gun-free zones, for example.
              DANGER: Piers Morgan (possible emetic):

              • In the article, I noted this:
                “”I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, but I do not believe that they have a right to use them irresponsibly,” he added.”

                Have we been having a pissfest over the distinction between the right to keep and bear arms and the right to shoot them?

                ‘Cause I don’t really think you have a “right” to empty your magazine into a crowded subway.

                The difference, of course, being the effect on persons other than the owner of the gun. This is why even we Libertarian loons believe in _some_ rules, like, “Don’t yell ‘theater!’ at a crowded fire” or “Don’t drive like a Californian” or “Don’t shoot people except to stop a direct threat to life and limb.”

              • “Have we been having a pissfest over the distinction between the right to keep and bear arms and the right to shoot them?”

                Well, to my way of thinking, there is no way to separate the two; we are not living in a giant, static FIREARMS MUSEUM. There is no reason to keep and bear them if they cannot be shot. Because there are far cheaper bludgeons and clubs around.

                At least I THINK that was your point.

              • “At least I THINK that was your point.”

                No, I think not exactly. I’m talking about the difference between shooting at the guy who just kicked your door in and is drawing a bead on you vs. shooting at people on the subway.

          • I was about to say, “Reaction Formation! They taught us about that in high school!” and then I realized, I wonder if any of the kids coming through today’s propaganda mills have even heard of such a thing?

      • Not at all. Liberals have brain damage: a very undeveloped Amygdala and as such are unable to process new information because there is no way to deliver that information to them without their amygdala going into overload (i.e. amygdala hijack.)

        This is all verified with peer reviewed studies, here’s one:
        It shows the Conservative brain to have a very large amygdala and the Liberal brain to have a very small one. That is the flight or fight center of the brain.

        Thus Liberals do not view logic and rational thought as we do: to them, it is negative (and scary!) stimulation of their flight or fight center of their brain and to be avoided at all cost.

        If you want to understand a Liberal so that you can beat a Liberal, you need to be reading the Anonymous Conservative.

        “This site is dedicated to a simple theory in Evolutionary Biology which explains why all of this is happening in our society. Called r/K Selection Theory, this concept explains why we have two political ideologies, why productive societies will inevitably decay into immoral cesspools of failure and then collapse, and why we will inevitably rise again.”

        • I’d take the author a whole lot seriously if such an “expert” as he could even understand how to use apostrophes correctly.

    • Several lurkers posted on the Metcalf threads. Whit and Gary come to mind. But what was there to say on that issue, really? There are sensible arguments about the regulation of criminals that are quite strong but, for whatever reason, anti’s tend not to make them. It isn’t on the agenda. They aren’t about “criminal violence,” but about banning guns, because they themselves at the moment can’t understand the utility of guns in sane hands. They aren’t Jefferson. Clearly most of the so-called ‘mass’ shootings over the last ten years have been perpetrated by dems or islamists. Fine. But the notable reality is that several of them were known to have either delusional disorders or pronounced violent ideation and fantasies…yet nothing was done. While I would take a person who repeatedly stabs a restaurant table violently while yelling “he’s dead!” to be a menace (Rahm), certainly the mental illness of the Aurora, Tucson, VT, and Newtown killers was known to their schools and families WHO DID NOTHING.

      The elephant in the room (no, not Christi) is family responsibility. It simply isn’t OK to let little Billy the Delusional or Gary the Gang Banging Meth Dealer continue to hold firearms….and it is the family’s responsibility to call the intervention when they know the facts and make that non-ownership happen. Without involving SWAT.

        • In contemporary parlance ‘islamist’ means an advocate for islam against the west, Christian, Jew, or secular, or otherwise. The locution to name a religious of a follower of Muhammed is “a Muslim.” I don’t know what you would like to call Major Hassan. I know that our Administration refuses to denominate him a terrorist or a radical islamist. Why this is true has been left obsure.

          Now, I’m not a Christianist. Is that someone who wishes to restart the crusades?

        • No, I’m a Neodruid. Freedom is my Worship Word. What should I have said? Mohammedans? Muslims? My point is that I’m really pissed off at the ones who spend an hour a week paying lip service to the Prince of Peace and spend the rest of their life practicing the opposite of what he was trying to teach.

          • I believe “Muslim” is sufficient in any situation. “Islamist” is a made-up word, with vaguely derogatory connotations, like the “Mooslim” you see around, or “Mohammedan”, a 19th-century term. Akin to “negroes” and “colored people”: not mean, just stubborn.

            It’s my belief, though I can’t prove it now, that “Islamist” is a made-up word that came from some Neocon think tank. This is all about dividing everyone. Until you realize the game is DIVISION, you’re behind the curve.

  2. I have seen this on FB from liberal friends who don’t like to have serious discussions about guns, until the shit hits home. One person sent me an IM asking me what kind of gun to buy b/c she was being stalked. . . . of course, publicly, she criticized me for being pro gun. Yep, you guessed it. I outed her. 🙂

    • I’ve seen what you are talkin about play out in real life. A friend of mine from high school hated guns for years. Well he recently came out and his now ex girlfriend’s brother and friends jumped him and beat him down pretty good. He’s out of the hospital now and we got to talkin one day when he asked if I had anything for sale… I wish I would have I coulda had a convert damn me and my short sightedness!!!

    • I’ve had that happen repeatedly. I don’t out them. Two of them were Million Mom March people who still vouched for me on state paperwork. Imagine. Recently our very safe (no murders) township called a meeting to address increased burglaries. Two hard-left people called me the minute they saw it. “What? Here? I should by a gun, but only because of this. Help me.” It’s normal. Violence isn’t about guns. It’s about criminals and those with serious mental illness. Yet, taking on those issues head-on just upsets the anti’s. So they obsess on guns, thus becoming the “useful idiots” (Lenin) of the ‘liberal’ statist power elite. Such has always been the way of the world. Athens banned weapons and private guards within the city. Then they let one popular man have a private guard. He then immediately established a tyranny. Nothing is new under the sun.

  3. Their rules alone spell out the moral loss of their cause. And at the very same time, the righteousness of ours. Seriously..change the debate matter to anything, drug abuse, politics, domestic violence…any topic you wish. They loose, every time with those rules.They loose morally and intellectually in every way a person can.

  4. Supporting gun rights is a principled position that we take. “Antigun” statism and anticulturalism is more like a religion, one that tolerates no heresy and thinks of us as the new antichrist on Earth. The fact is, if they could, they’d kill us. And that’s the truth.

    • “The fact is, if they could, they’d kill us. And that’s the truth.”

      If they could kill us… and get AWAY with it. Important point.

      Know this beyond any doubt: the way they run their forums is precisely the way they’d run the country, if they could.

      And that includes re-education camps and disappearances.

      • “Know this beyond any doubt: the way they run their forums is precisely the way they’d run the country, if they could.

        And that includes re-education camps and disappearances.”

        In 2ish years of trolling, that may just be the scariest (i.e. most truthful) thing I’ve ever read on this site.

      • Subconsciously they know they need a hitman. Consciously they can only call him (them) ‘the armed guys with uniforms (usually), hired to keep criminals, and you, in line.” They don’t realize they’ve hired people who will become their bosses, in essence paying their own jailors because they are unwilling to take any responsibility, sharing the burden of safety. Naturally I know many people who have guns, skeet or target shooters. I know none who commit crimes. “If you eliminate guns, you’ll still have a crime problem. If you get criminals off the streets, you cannot have a gun problem.” Cooper.

      • I might have got the Pravda article from here.

        “Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.”

    • Yes, and whereas I have no fear of the punk in hipster glasses at Starbucks who might wish me dead, I don’t like my chances against a SWAT team. That’s one reason I so fervently hope that we can turn the Progressive movement by political means. I really think that tide is receding again even as we speak, and Progressive will be a dirty word for a few decades like it was for a while after Wilson and FDR. Ever vigilant.

      • Well, Freedom lovers of all stripes are working on various aspects of the tyranny problem – there’s the Oath Keepers, the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, the Tenth Amendment Center, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and so on.

        I’m really jazzed about the idea of not only jury nullification, but state and even local nullification, where the state or local authorities will actively protect their citizens from unconstitutional federal encroachment, for example

        The Federal govt is really only supposed to have those powers expressly delegated to it by the states through the Constitution.

        • @Hobbez
          No, I think to myself, there goes another person who was probably hurting no one getting high. I do cheer when dealers get busted, as they tend to be violent.

    • Yep, Marxism=communism=socialism=liberal/progressive, all variations of elitist statist control all marked by mass death and totalitarian comtrol, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the Liberal/progressives support of abortion. Mass deaths over a hundred million, over the last hundred years,especially when the mass murder of the unborn is included.

      If the progressives had their way; all people that love freedom and the second amendment would add to that list.

        • That’s what I was going to say. As appalling as abortion is, it isn’t equivalent to the slaughter of people who are already breathing the free air.

          • Enjoy that free air. Its days are numbered. They’re working on the details somewhere in the bowels of a huge, squat building without windows.

            Did you hear that the Spanish government is working on the “free sunshine” thing?

          • Or the Breath of Life?
            “Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
            Genesis 2:7

        • You prove my point Richard and ING, You have dehumanized a living being that has a beating heart moving limbs and in the womb of a woman for short 9 months of a being that could live for a hundred years.

          So if all the millions of babies that have been murdered had been allowed to live to where they could be asked a simple question; “do you want your mother to kill you before you have a chance to be born”? How do you think most of those little boys and girls would answer? How about you Richard or ING, how would you answer that question now if your mothers were thinking about killing you before you were born?

          • ‘Tis a powerful question. And it deserves an equally powerful answer, wouldn’t you think? [crickets chirping]

            I would ask this, ’twere it but possible: that they consent to holding the tiny, lifeless form in both hands, and to pronounce that it was something other than a recently-deceased human being.

      • So Hannibal, I gave examples of The statist elitists ie liberal/progressive proven track record of mass death and government tyranny; their rabid desire to take our ability to defeat tyranny and mass slaughter by taking away our second amendment rights.
        So give some examples of those that defend our personal liberty and the right to keep and bear arms supporting the mass slaughter of those that disagree with us.

      • Hannibal, I think you’re on the wrong forum. Try NAMBLA. I think you’ll find it more to your liking.

      • Libertarians are even now plotting to take over the world so they can…leave you alone? Wait, that doesn’t quite work…

    • Yup.

      Ralph knows of what he speaks, folks. I will back him to the hilt on the “culture war” issue. The left’s culture warriors would be beside themselves with glee if they could order the military to simply kill us all. Cleanly, of course. These are the type of people that don’t want to see messy things on their evening news.

      • In early stages, they might even be willing to let you leave the country. As long as you leave all your money behind.

  5. Boy, that’s almost as bad as firing someone for writing a piece about the second amendment that doesn’t mirror the views of its most vocal advocates.

    • If your actual job is writing articles to increase membership in a magazine, then writing an article designed to drive away readership isn’t a good idea.

      If an editor for a women’s magazine wrote an article saying that women are partially responsible for getting raped if they engage in certain activities, such as getting drunk with strangers, I’d expect that editor to be fired, not because there article itself was controversial or couldn’t prod people into thinking about the subject in a different manner, but because it goes greatly against the mission statement of the magazine and its readership, thus that editor does not belong there.

    • Sir, I generally try to assume that a person making a comment here, no matter how apparently illogical, is an honest seeker, and may actually have a point I have not realized. You are making it difficult. There is an obvious fundamental difference between banning someone from the conversation, and saying that we will not pay to support a position we find reprehensible. If you literally cannot see that difference, then I weep for the people of this country.

    • Not quite the same thing, although I can see how you’re confused. G&A is a for-profit business, not a for-attention movement. When multiple major clients call up and say they’ll pull ads rather than endure boycotts of their products for supporting those ideas, that’s a lifeblood business decision to be made and G&A, well, decided, in favor of the profitable route. That’s exactly aligned with their purpose.

      This reddit site, however, allegedly exists as a vehicle for free speech on reader-defined important stories and discussions. This little subreddit moderator, however, stifles speech by fiat and unilaterally banishes opposing views and their purveyors. Sounds mighty contrary to that site’s stated purpose.

      • Riiight… “It’s not censorship because we’re not calling it censorship.”

        Some of you deserve a gold medal for the mental gymnastics you go through to try and justify the hypocrisy of shutting up someone you don’t agree with while pillorying the other side for doing the same thing. We’re not talking the legality of censorship here, it’s the inability to even consider other views.

        • Okay, so we silence everyone who disagrees with us or makes a point we don’t like, and yet neither you or anyone else making that same argument over and over again has been banned. Do explain this.

        • Principled condemnation isn’t censorship. Metcalf is free to buy or start his own publication and write whatever he may wish. He can even come here to this site and exchange views. He’s hasn’t expressed an interest in either option so far.

        • Oh, Hannibal… You see, if Dick Metcalf had written his commentary for the Huffington Post, the People of the Gun would have thought – “what a Dick!” – and gone about our days. But you see, he did it on the back page of Guns and Ammo, a magazine that has prided itself for, oh, about the past 40 years as a key voice in the gun rights movement. Do you really not see the difference?

          We do not censor his statement because we didn’t like it, but for his betrayal of the very serious fight to protect the Second Amendment and our rights to self protection with it. Making a common Brady Campaign argument within the context of G&A is simply unforgivable. Sorry you don’t see the difference.

          • Plus the fact that, at least for me, it would kinda behoove me to write stuff that doesn’t trash the guy who signs my paycheck.

            • “Behoove”. It always sounds as if it should mean, “to put hooves upon”. Scary. Sulphur odors.

        • No, it’s not censorship because the people doing the complaining – ie the G&A readership – don’t have the authority to fire, suspend, or otherwise censure the author in question. Nor do they have power to block publication in the first place. In point of fact, the editorial *was* published. This is dealing with the aftermath.

          They do have the power to cancel their subscriptions and many apparently have. Also, the companies who advertise in its pages have a choice as to whether they wish to be associated with the magazine.

          The G&A management team have made a business decision to try to retain asany readers and advertisers as they can. Neither the readers nor the advertisers have the authority to do that.

  6. And yall expected anything less than vile hatred from hoplophobes?? We’ve known all along they don’t want to talk, they feel they are superior to us in every way and, since they are, they automatically have no responsibility to hear us out.

      • Apparently, Sen Mitch McConnell (RINO, KY) thinks that way. Silence those who won’t let him support the liberal/progressive/leftist agenda of the Democrats within his own party: boycott all who support, do business with, or agree with the Senate Conservative Fund and the Tea Party. Silence them and remove their opposition. His view and apparently no longer hidden behind mouthpieces and minions.

        Kentuckians need to finally boot the guy who totally knows how unhappy they are with him, and doesn’t care. (My vote doesn’t count because I’m not a resident of or legal voter in Kentucky.)

        • Not a resident: I call another State home… Happily it is not CA, HI, CO, IL, NY, NJ, MA, or DC. Although I do wish them well in the return of their rights and the removal of said leftist/liberal/progressive commies from office.

    • See this is the problem, Metcalf, and people like him, are all under the impression that their right to free speech is without consequences. You’re free to say anything you want, and he did. No one stopped him from saying what he said, but there are always consequences for your words. The consequence for his option was his job. Not jail, or a fine. He’s still free, free to repeat, rephrase and not apologize. And thus, the reaction of him employers was perfectly within their right to do so.

      You see how that works? Individual responsibility? You can say what you want but your words have meaning. What they mean to whom is never predictable. But just because we have the 1st amendment doesn’t mean your protected from the consequences of what you say.

  7. This is how the whole democratic party and liberals see free speech. The only speech that is allowed is what they agree with. Same goes for their views on firearms.

    • Liberals are “pro-choice”, on any issue, only so long as they get to do the choosing for others.

    • The statist/fascist education system (essentially completely dominated by leftist thinking) that exists in this country from K-Grad is an example of how our entire country will look like if the leftists got full control of the reins of this country. If you want to see what kind of hellish/double-think country we would be subjected to you only have to look at the crazy world of the leftist campus.

  8. If they will be authoritarian in the little things, how much worse will they be about the big things once our guns have been taken away?

  9. A dead forum with very few members and draconian rules is a lousy example. An active forum that is sponsored by a national political advocacy group is a much better indicator of what the anti-gun community will/won’t tolerate. By the same token, TTAG is a much better example of the 2A community than a little used, anonymous forum, wouldn’t you agree?

  10. I love debate. I think there are a lot of conversations that should be had, rather than ignored. But, as an example, I remember trying to talk with a female friend about gender equality, to which I was answered with, “You don’t understand! You’re just a man!” Which, in case you didn’t notice, is the exact opposite of debate and discussion.

    I don’t mind talking about race issues, either, as someone who has had their life threatened based on their skin color. Yes, I am white. Let’s talk about why that matters. Let’s not dismiss my life experiences because there was an article on CNN the other day that said my race and gender mean I’m rich and other rich people go out of there way to make me richer. Ive actually been told I’m too poor for food stamps. There’s a handout for you.

    Dissent is an important part of discourse. If you’re not ready to handle a differing opinion, you’re not looking for a discussion. You’re looking to validate yourself in an insanely shallow way that involves you not having to do any thinking or move your stance.

    • Ooh, that one’s a serious hot button for me. I’m white, male, blond-haired, [nominally] Christian, conservative, heterosexual, and a native Southerner. If I were also rich, then I would be every single adjective that left-wing groupthink says is okay to hate, so I get the “You couldn’t possibly understand!” card pulled on me a lot.

      It pisses me off not so much because it’s their weapon for ending debate; we’re all used to them pulling any trick to avoid defending their ideas anyhow. Rather, it pisses me off because it makes the assumption that the adjectives used to describe me somehow prevent me from having empathy. That despite the ad nauseum assurances I heard growing up that we’re all the same inside, I’m somehow incapable of showing compassion or relating to the experiences of others, and on a genetic level, to boot. And yeah, I don’t take very kindly to it.

      So when someone tells me that now, I don’t even argue the point anymore. I just let them know that if they want to assume that my various accidents of birth make me incapable of one of the most basic displays of humanity, then f*ck them, and f*ck their struggle, too; I’m apparently not capable of caring anyway, so why should I waste my time?

      • One of my favorite Archer quotes is definitely, “Oh, put it back in the deck.”

        A guy I worked with liked to tell stories about how hard his childhood was and how hard it was to be treated differently because he looked different. Then his parents visited the office one Christmas. Turns out, they lived in the neighborhood he pretended to be from for less than a week, where I actually grew up. Also turned out his dad is mid-high management at GM, and actually the boss of a lot of my family.

        Your race doesn’t tell everyone everywhere everything they need to know about you. And it sure doesn’t preclude you from being able to feel things.

      • Lucas: You’ve eloquently identified yet another gaping hole in leftist logic;

        From their position it’s unacceptable to denigrate any person because of their skin color or gender or make assumptions about them based on these factors because underneath we’re all worthy humans . . .unless you’re talking about a white male, then he’s the problem because he’s a racist, sexist heartless beast with is foot on the neck of everyone who isn’t white and male.

        If it’s possible for white or men to act differently as a result of their genetics then by definition non white and women must be capable of acting different because of theirs. The logical flaw is as pervasive in leftist ideology in the US as it is obvious.

        Of course leftists will attempt any maneuver to avoid honest debate, this is what all people do naturally when you challenge them on a position they cannot support but are unwilling to abandon; obfuscate, condemn, lie, attack ad hominem, develop straw men, anything to avoid exposing that their position has no logical foundation.

        An intelligent and more importantly an honest person examines their positions logically and is open to abandoning previously held positions based on new information. Refusing to do so must have merits and causes and these can be described succinctly as either:

        Delusion: The person is somewhat aware that their position doesn’t fit into reality but cannot abandon it due to mental defect or emotional issues.

        Dishonesty: The person is fully aware that their position doesn’t fit into reality but maintain it for some external reason, such as it gives them power.

        Ignorance: The person isn’t aware that their position doesn’t fit into reality because they do not have enough information to have such awareness or they have not examined the position in light of the available information. Once the information becomes available, to continue to maintain the position beyond this indicates at least one of the two factors are in play. Often this is dishonesty due to fear of humiliation for admitting previous ignorance or else to maintain social status and relationships based on the flawed position.

        These patterns hold true not just with leftists but with anyone who holds a position that is illogical or counter to reality. I developed the formula for something completely unrelated to gun rights or politics and it’s titled well, it starts with my real name (NAME’s axiom) and I don’t wish to use it here but it proposes that anyone with illogical beliefs must either be insane, dishonest or ignorant. Ergo, to change such a persons position via logic is impossible, one instead must address the underlying issue.

        I’ve previously posted a specified version of this axiom as “Ardent’s Axiom” at TTAG. However the axiom can be used to determine the cause of any illogical position anyone might hold and suggest how to bring them back to a logical position.

    • I read somewhere that when someone says, “You don’t understand! You’re just a [whatever]!” the most useful/helpful response is, “Well, then, teach me. Make me understand.”

  11. To be honest, I’ve been banned from a couple of gun forums for stepping out of line and posting up crazy things like “why did so-and-so get banned?” or “personally I like the 9mm cartridge”. I’ve made far more controversial comments here and the fact I can still post is why I frequent this site. The internet is full of “moderators” on power trips.

  12. The best example I can think of to relate these people to is theirs and Obamas socialist anti-freedom god Hitler. These people are logic Nazis. Speak against them? Nein! They ban you.

    • Don’t ever point out that Hitler was a vegetarian Catholic Socialist. Lest we forget, he invented atheism and right wing politics. /sarcasm

        • As far as Catholic? Not so sure considering how superstitious he was and how much “the occult” had a huge impact on his weapons of war, his strategies, and actions.

        • NAZI means National Socialist Workers Party in German.

          It wasn’t just a slogan, while members who more actively pushed the Socialism aspect, such as the Strasser brothers were killed or purged, that was more to appease capitalist interests so Hitler could obtain power.

          Once he had power, it’s hard to find much difference in actual State functioning between Stalin and Hitler? Both had State ownership of large segments of production.

          Remember, the SS ran a huge number of labor camps, it’s hard to have more control over the means of production than owning the people and working them literally to death.