Over at the TTAG Facebook page we have largely the same comment policy that we have on the main site. In other words, unless your comment is vulgar or threatening it’s good to go. Naturally this has opened the door to gun control activists leaving comments on the page, and the comments are usually met with instant and vocal opposition from some of the regulars. And unlike Shannon’s crew, we don’t delete or ban anyone unless they become abusive. One thing these screeds are good for is understanding the mentality of gun control activists, revealing the false “facts” underpinning their arguments and the mindset that supports their position. Let’s explore one together, shall we? . . .
I am an American and I am a long time gun owner. My guns are registered and I have a permit to carry them.
This is the current rallying cry of choice for every gun control activist. “Hey guys, look! I’m one of you! I own guns too! And I think we should ban them all!” Claiming to love the 2nd Amendment while advocating for its demise is all the rage, a transparent attempt at infiltrating the gun rights camp in order to destroy it from within. Is this person really a gun owner? Or even an American? On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog.
I am all in favor of CHANGE to our current laws concerning gun control. Serious change. I do not hide behind the 2nd amendment or twist its meaning […]
In the same way that the KKK believes Brown v. Board of Education was completely wrong, the gun control activists of today believe that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is bogus. Civilian disarmers believe that the 2A guarantees guns for people in uniform and only those people, a position which makes no logical sense whatsoever. Gun rights advocates believe, and are backed up by the Supreme Court, that the 2A enumerates an individual’s right to own guns. Bruce Krafft did an excellent piece on the Second Amendment and its origins, I suggest you read it and find the truth for yourself.
It boils down to freedom and rights. Gun control activists believe that the rights of the people need to be eliminated in order to make them “feel” safer whether or not that perception is valid. That’s something I’ve touched on before. Gun rights advocates cherish their rights and individual freedoms over the empty promise of safety.
Shannon Watts and her merry band of nodding lobotomites continue to claim that their reading of the Bill of Rights is the correct version for one reason only: the appearance of intellectual supremacy. They enjoy looking down their noses at “uneducated red neck” gun owners who can’t even understand plain English — it makes them feel superior. That’s the basis of their entire campaign, that a single billionaire knows better than millions of Americans and the nation’s highest court and we should bend to that benevolent dictator’s will. For our own good, of course.
[…] as the NRA and the gun manufacturers do to further their cause in their effort to flood our streets with guns. These two entities are joined at the hip and one cannot survive without the other. They do not make the rules, but they think they do, and I want to put an end to it. I actually hold them COMPLICIT in every massacre and shooting in America. They may not have pulled the trigger but they certainly supplied the ammunition.
Here we have #2 on the greatest hits list of gun control activists; painting the NRA as an evil corporate shill whose sole purpose is to generate profits for the soulless gun companies. The strategy is a common one for Democrats, demonizing the opposition as soulless and evil makes it easier to generate legitimate feelings of hatred in their followers. As a bonus, if they can associate those evil organizations with “big corporations,” even better, since corporations are pretty high on the Occupy Wall Street generation’s list of things they don’t particularly care for.
While NRA-bashing is a common tactic, the underlying belief generating that hatred is that guns cause crime. The phrase “flood our streets with guns” is the tip-off — there’s no mention of criminals or murderers, the author simply assumes that his readers also believe that guns are the root cause of all crime. They’re deluded enough to think that if all guns were to vanish instantaneously from the Earth, crime would stop. That people are naturally peaceful, and the temptation to commit crime is made nearly irresistible when a gun is introduced into the environment.
Gun controllers blame the gun for every act of violence. The criminal committing the crime is actually another innocent victim, corrupted by the satanic powers of the firearm.
It’s time for CHANGE right now. This cartel (NRA and gun manufacturers) need to be held accountable.
Holding gun companies accountable for crimes committed with their products is like holding shoe companies accountable for enabling criminals to run from the cops. And blaming the NRA for “gun violence” is like blaming AAA for drunk driving deaths. There’s no basis in logic, unless you’ve drunk deep from the Shannon Watts Kool-Aid and already have a passionate hatred for the NRA.
We need a ban on automatic weapons […]
The author seems to be unaware that there have been exactly zero murders committed with machine guns in the last decade. In fact, there have been zero murders committed with machine guns in this century. The repeated call for a ban on automatic weapons — and the fact that it’s usually near the top of their wish list for change — is proof positive that the author doesn’t actually care about improving the situation. They only care about optics and perception, not making changes that would have one iota of an impact on the situation on the ground in south Chicago or Detroit.
People like the author of this rant don’t care if the actions they demand would actually accomplish anything, they just know that guns are scary and no one should have them. Banning machine guns wouldn’t have had an impact of any kind on the crime rate or murder rate in the United States, but it’s #1 on the gun control activist wish list.
[…] as well as large capacity magazines.
The fixation on large capacity magazines is pretty interesting. Gun controllers have this collective fantasy where if they force an active shooter to reload often enough, it gives someone a chance to tackle the bad guy to the ground and stop them. They don’t seem to care that large magazines would be helpful in situations where multiple attackers are involved in a home invasion, something that happens every day in this country. Instead, the focus is on forcing mass shooters to reload their guns — a situation that’s exceedingly rare in the United States and getting more rare every year.
It’s almost like gun control advocates don’t care about the lives that could be saved by using a gun defensively. That they prefer dead victims to living gun owners.
We need full registration for all semi-automatic weapons.
I’m just going to leave this quote here, from Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino about the Canadian firearms registry and its effectiveness:
“We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered[…]. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.”
A registry of firearms hasn’t helped the Canadians and there’s zero evidence that it would help us here in the US either. There’s only one purpose for a registry of firearms: knowing which door to knock on when you finally decide you want to confiscate them all. I hate to invoke Godwin’s Law, but…
We need licensing and training for anyone in order to carry.
I’m going to give the author some leeway on this point. There’s some debate about carry licensing even among gun rights advocates, so I’ll let this one slip. But the next point more than makes up for it.
We need some type of a mental evaluation for those who want to own these weapons. Anyone who owns or intends to own a gun should also need a permit to do so.
There’s two ways to take this statement, and I think our author believes both.
Why do you need a mental evaluation? Because obviously gun owners are raving lunatics and mass murderer wannabes. Like all good disarmers, the author believes that gun owners are idiots and head cases who need to be controlled by their intellectual betters. It’s an ugly and dehumanizing viewpoint, the belief that people who avail themselves of their right to keep and bear arms are some sort of untermenschen, and its one that’s pervasive among gun control activists.
The second way to interpret the statement is an extension of the belief that gun ownership is a privilege and not a right. Since guns are obviously enchanted charms that brainwash their owners into committing crimes, only intellectual elites who can resist these charms should be granted permits to own guns. That’s the current situation in places like New York and New Jersey, bastions of law and order where corruption is impossible and obtaining a permit is an easy and fast process.
Owning and carrying a LETHAL weapon should come with some serious Responsibility.
The last time I checked, a permit to carry a gun is not a license to kill. Murder is still murder and criminals who break the law will be punished accordingly whether they had a license to carry or not. The author seems to believe that people who carry guns are irresponsible dolts, hence his call for mandatory responsibility. Unfortunately for our contributor, concealed carry license holders seem to be more responsible than the police. So unless the plan is to first disarm the police, requiring “Responsibility” for carrying a gun is a futile and redundant endeavor.
No one should be able to simply walk into a gun store an buy an AR 15 and large capacity magazines without having to show that they are responsible enough to do so.
Again, the stereotype that gun owners are irresponsible fools and mentally deficient. Add the scary AR-15 rifle as the cherry on top, a strange target for gun control activists since less than 2% of murders are committed using rifles of any kind.
Facts. Logic. Statistics. None of those three components made an appearance in this rant. Instead, what we have is nonsensical rambling from yet another civilian disarmament advocate spouting proposals that would do absolutely nothing to address the stated problem of “gun violence.” Rather, all they would do is remove the ability for people to defend themselves and create even more victims.
The author doesn’t care. Guns are evil, and he’s willing to sacrifice innocent lives so long as he feels safer. That’s all he really cares about, not whether what he proposes will actually make a difference or save lives.
Thank you.
Oh no, thank you. This was fun, we should do it again sometime.