Question of the Day: Why Are Anti-Gunners So Nasty?

In our Quote of the Day, writer Rika Christensen accused open carry demonstrators of racism. No surprise there. Anti-gunners have no compunctions about portraying American gun owners as old, over-weight, slack-jawed, intellectually-impaired, under-endowed, emotionally unstable southern racists. They do so not because it’s true – as our Facebook gallery proved – but because it makes them feel superior. And it’s convenient; it removes the need to have a serious discussion about gun control – which the antis know they’d lose. So it’s more crap like this: 8 Things Guns Compensate For (Besides Your Penis) [via]. I know full-well the pro-gun side can be vicious, but our spokesfolk (save Alex Jones) keep it respectful. Why do the antis feel free to be so nasty?


  1. avatar DrVino says:

    We’re not a democracy. We’re a constitutional republic.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      20 points for you, sir.

      1. avatar john says:

        Yep I have known to get nasty but only when they start talking about how all gun owners should die or have their kids shot to death….then the gloves come off.

    2. avatar Fler says:

      I came here to say the same thing.

    3. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Progressives remain willfully ignorant of the facts because facts would destroy much of the basis for their “utopia.”

      If that’s what they want then wouldn’t it be logical to actually move to a nation more socialist today? Instead of trying to destroy our constitutional republic, it would make more sense to build on a nation already closer to their stated goals.

      1. avatar Mark says:

        +1 to this.
        I have long thought that those who wish to live in a socialist society should move to one and leave us the hell alone, but that would require the would-be socialist to take personal responsibility and personal action: not a very likely outcome, in my experience.

      2. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

        I think you mean dystopia, but hey if it has unicorns in it!

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Yup, dystopia. I usually use dystopia, dystopic, and dystopian but decided to mix it up a little bit ’cause it’s Hump Day! 😉

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Actually, that’s based on the mistaken belief that utopia is actually “eutopia,” or “good place,” when actually, it’s “ootopia,” “no place.” The author wasn’t talking about an ideal society but a fictitious unattainable one.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:


          A utopia /juːˈtoʊpiə/ is a community or society possessing highly desirable or near perfect qualities. The word was coined by Sir Thomas More in Latin for his 1516 book Utopia, describing a fictional island society in the Atlantic Ocean. The term has been used to describe both intentional communities that attempt to create an ideal society, and imagined societies portrayed in fiction. It has spawned other concepts, most prominently dystopia.

          The term utopia was coined in Greek by Sir Thomas More for his 1516 book Utopia, describing a fictional island society in the Atlantic Ocean. The word comes from the Greek: οὐ (“not”) and τόπος (“place”) and means “no place”. The English homophone eutopia, derived from the Greek εὖ (“good” or “well”) and τόπος (“place”), means “good place”. This, because of the identical pronunciation of “utopia” and “eutopia”, gives rise to a double meaning.

    4. avatar Accur81 says:

      Amen to that!

      And I have some leads on local .22 LR ammo for your new gun that’s around $.10 / round. Hope I can go shooting with you again before football season starts.

    5. avatar Taylor TX says:

      Something something two wolves and a sheep something something Dinner 🙂

      It just felt so right.

      Funny, I explained to my buddy from Pakistan last night over dinner, Democracy is merely mob rule and that we are a Constitutional Republic. Hopefully he’ll come around on guns eventually.

    6. avatar Col. Angus says:

      Proglodytes dream of a true democracy….one step closer to the mob rule they desire. And of course by then they’ll have all the guns…..

      1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        Well, yes. But if you got an honest answer from the dark lords of the progs like Soros, I think they’d tell you that direct democracy is only a means to an end, the wrecking ball they will use to tear down the Republic so they can build an authoritarian oligarchy on the rubble.

        1. avatar Bob says:

          George Soros doesn’t care about rebuilding after the collapse. He only cares about the collapse, and how much money he can make off of it.

          Do you want to know how George Soros made his billions? By investing in hedge funds that make money when a country’s currency loses value. He personally caused the economic collapse of several smaller countries around the world, and made billions of dollars doing it. Now he is working on the collapse of the US Dollar. This is the ultimate (well hidden) goal of the Soros Foundation.

    7. avatar Mediocrates says:

      we were a Constitutional Republic before they allowed non-land owners to vote and the direct election of senators. If you still think we’re a Republic, you’ve been watching too much Star Wars.

      1. avatar Sam Spade says:

        No. The Supreme Court struck down Article 4, Clause 1, of the US Constitution in 1964–Reynolds v. Sims (377 U.S. 533)–when it ruled that big cities would control state governments.

      2. avatar Taylor TX says:

        I think its got a little connection to star wars right, a faux senate controlled by men in the shadows.

    8. avatar Sian says:

      In a democracy two wolves and a rabbit vote on what to have for dinner.

      But I thought Liberals were all about the rights of the minority!

    9. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Gee, I was going to post the same thing. Ahhh… the gun control crowd are such intellectual giants.

    10. avatar Stuki says:

      Not anymore we’re not. The constitution was tossed in the toilet with the “fire in a crowded theater” nonsense. It’s been straight downhill ever since.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        The death warrant for the Republic was signed on February 3, 1913.
        Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
        Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.
        The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        The Constitution lost early than those two examples: Marbury v. Madison, 1803. This is the usurped power through which the Constitution has been gutted.

  2. avatar El Mac says:

    @RF, I’ve never met a Leftist/Statist/Amerikan Soviet that wasn’t “nasty”. Like the scorpion and the frog story, it’s just their nature.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      This. The true believers think they are working toward utopia. They have a deep seated belief that they know best, and that those who oppose them are like stubborn children selfishly refusing to do what’s best for all of us.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Spot on!

        I’ve had a local liberal say to me more than once, (paraphrased) We know what’s best. Those who oppose what we are bringing about are like stubborn children selfishly refusing to do what’s best for all of us. It’s all about the collective moving towards this “utopia” and the opposition must be forced along “for their own good.”

        1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          Well…Arbeit does macht frei.

    2. My colleague, John J. Ray, studied the motivations of political leftists for his doctorate. He says they are born this way, that it is genetic.


      By John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)

      1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        Interesting. Have to go though that later.

        Another conceptual framework I have found useful is:

        His model is consistent with a great deal of human behavior, and I have yet to find aspects of liberal and conservative behavior with which it is inconsistent.

      2. avatar rlc2 says:

        Intriguing theory- and there is a LOT of material there to pore over, but here is one that caught my eye, as I can never reconcile what appears to be a constant connection between the radical left-progressives with islamofascism:

        a quote:

        “And the reason why the Left are friendly to Islam could hardly be simpler: As I pointed out in the beginning above, hatred of the world about them is fundamental to Leftists. They are people who are consumed by and fundamentally motivated by hate. And that is also true of the Islamofascists. Both groups are great haters. And they hate the same thing. They hate everyday Western culture. They hate the “system” of Western capitalism.”

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          It’s just reenactments of the eternal battle between Good and Evil:

          The spectrum of the Spirit Polarity goes from Lucifer on the extreme left to Ahriman on the extreme right, with your spirit and my loving Light, of course, in the center. Lucifer is warm, earthy, sweet and sexual, and often mean, brutish and demanding. Ahriman is cool, mental, astringent and rational, and quite detached and judgmental.

          While Lucifer is sly, Ahriman is clever, and they both hate the Mother, but for different reasons. In a face to face battle, Ahriman will always outwit Lucifer, and yet Lucifer will sometimes win with sheer force of ill intent and ‘dirty tricks’.

      3. avatar Ardent says:

        Thank you Dean! This articulates things that I’ve been trying to coalesce into cogent thoughts for years! I’ve only read a small part of it but so far it is self evidently true and, like I said, explains phenomena that I’ve been observing for most of my adult life.

        To anyone who hasn’t read this link, go read it!

  3. avatar Mike P. says:

    I really think that those anti gun folks, especially the most vociferous, are essentially jealous, jealous that they do not have the balls to take personal responsibility for their own and their families protection.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      It’s not jealousy. It the reaction of coward who is put to shame by his betters. What the coward doesn’t understand is that courage is not the absense of fear but the will to overcome it.

    2. avatar JasonM says:

      I don’t think it’s jealousy or cowardice. I live and work in Seattle, so I get to interact with a lot of these sorts of people. There seem to be two types: the sheep and the pigs (yes that’s an Orwell reference).

      The sheep don’t understand why we don’t accept their collectivist views as absolute fact. Things are so simple and obvious to them. If we’d all just destroy our guns, and close all the gun stores, crime would disappear. If we’d all just let the government raise taxes and set wages, poverty and famine would disappear. Also, unicorns!! Most of this these people have good intentions, but haven’t really thought things through. They’re college “educated”, and that’s what they learned in college, and haven’t questioned since.

      The pigs are the evil, hate-filled ones we see in the Quote of the Day articles. They feel (and their feelings are so strong, they must be true) that their collectivist views are the one truth, but that implementing them requires centralized control, and strict obedience to their one truth. These are the people who, when asked about socialism and the millions of casualties–and most of this type still see Lenin, Mao, Castro, etc. as heroes, say that some deaths are necessary to reach utopia.

      1. avatar Richard says:

        “These are the people who, when asked about socialism and the millions of casualties–and most of this type still see Lenin, Mao, Castro, etc. as heroes, say that some deaths are necessary to reach utopia.”

        And I will be happy to help them meet Lenin, Mao, Castro and the rest of the tyrants.

  4. avatar Ralph says:

    Because they hate us.

    1. avatar El Mac says:

      @Ralph, yes…they “hate” us because in actuality, they hate themselves. They hate us because we are not like them…that is, they are: dependent, needy, whiney, weak, unprincipled, undisciplined, lacking values, lacking moral underpinning, etc. We represent everything they are not – and so they hate us.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        I believe you are correct. And we also look better than they do.

        1. avatar El Mac says:

          @Ralph, our women definitely look better!

        2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          I love Soviet Style!

  5. avatar IdahoPete says:

    They feel free to be nasty because they have owned and run the “mainstream” media since the 1960s, and they have become used to getting away with this kind of vicious ad hominem attack without any consequences. Everyone in their circle of chattering class friends agrees with them, so they see no personal pushback.

    Plus, they are all a bunch of whey-faced, beetle-headed foot-lickers. [Hey, they set the standards of discourse.]

    1. avatar Rokurota says:

      This is it. My lefty friends are shocked when I show them the malicious or wrong-headed things folks like Bloomberg, Holder and even Richard Dawkins have said. Their hatefulness is just not reported like “binders of women” was.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Wasn’t that “Binders full of women” 🙂

    2. avatar R Shackleford says:

      Beetles have and serve more purpose. Be kind to them.

    3. avatar Matt in Tx says:

      AGREED! There are no consequences for/because of their actions. In fact they are likely to be rewarded.

  6. avatar Paul McCain says:

    Many pro-gunners are every bit as nasty. No point in trying to claim any moral high ground on this point.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      What, no “Chipotle Ninjas” comment? Thank you for taking the higher road this time, reverend.

      1. avatar Anon in CT says:

        I happen to think that SOME open carry advocates are unwise, ill-timed and tone-deaf. That’s not the same as being deliberately nasty.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Correct. The way that you just expressed your view is not a deliberately nasty way to convey your opinion.

      2. avatar Matt in Tx says:

        If only for this comment. I like John in Ohio.

    2. avatar Vhyrus says:

      Say what you want, but I have yet to see a pro gunner ever say anything even remotely similar to wishing our children death in a school shooting. Usually even the nastiest of pro gunners leave the children out of it. Not the other side.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        I said somehting nasty about Mr. Malloy today but I only wished him bodily harm. A dead person learns nothing.

    3. avatar rlc2 says:

      Thank you Paul, but wrong- you are applying the moral equivalence fallacy.

      You are capable of better thinking, based on some of your excellent gun tech posts, which is why I sometimes wonder if there isn’t another person using your same screen name, perhaps a libtard troll.

      This is a complicated topic, worthy of debate, not shutting it down from an artificially lofty perch of moral superiority. Its relevant to gun laws because as Mao Zedung said: “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”.

    4. avatar Duke of Sharon says:

      There is one particular factor which prevents moral equivalency.

      First, let’s clarify what the “anti’s” want and thus better define who we’re talking about when we say “anti’s”. They are not working toward, nor advocating total disarmament. They want to disarm the People, not the State. Further, they are not talking about consensual disarmament, they are talking about coerced disarmament–disarmament using the violent, coercive power of government.

      So by definition, when we talk about “anti’s” we are talking about violent people. Their violence worse than direct violence because they don’t even have the decency to engage in it directly; they send out their proxies. People who are willing to hurt, or threaten to hurt, or to pay others to hurt or threaten, others to get what they want are bad people.

      But there is one more layer of evil here. The government which the “anti’s” seek to use against us, is one which was instituted among us for the good purposes of defending our lives, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government was created to do just the opposite of what it is being used for today. That is bad, and the people doing it are bad, and it should be no surprise that they are bad not just in a few specific ways, but in general.

      Thus the term “Dirty Liberal” is applicable to all Liberals in the modern sense (meaning that they would liberally apply the violent coercive power of government to solve all problems, real and imagined; as opposed to the classical liberals who were inclined toward individual Liberty). Modern Liberals are “dirty” in the sense that they are violent cheaters.

      “Pro’s” or “People of the Gun” certainly come in all stripes. However, by definition and as a class, they are less inclined to use the coercive power of the State to order the lives of their neighbors. Therefore, “Pro’s” are inherently better human beings than “Anti’s.”

      (The above analysis assumes that the reader values peace and freedom over political power. If that is not the case, then I suppose “Pro’s” and “Anti’s” would, to such a person, be roughly equivalent in terms of inherent value. That value being, none.)

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        That was well presented and I agree.

        1. avatar Matt in Tx says:

          Hear Hear! Well said man. Well said.

  7. avatar Pudd says:

    “Because they hate us.”

    That’s about it. Hate doesn’t need reason.

  8. avatar Pudd says:

    “… I know full-well the pro-gun side can be vicious…”

    No moral high ground was claimed.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      He can’t hear you, he’s on his soapbox

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        oh, is that what that creaking noise is?

    2. avatar Another Robert says:

      Actually, it’s usually the lefties claiming the “moral high ground” on this kind of thing. Civility and all that you know. So add a heapin’ helpin’ of hypocrisy to their sins, and I think the pro-gun crowd comes out on top. And, as RF pointed out, it’s kind of a leadership thing. Rank-and-file pro-gunners may occasionally be vicious, but the leadership tries to keep it clean. Increasingly, not so the antis.

  9. avatar darkstar says:

    Simple really. When you can’t defend your positions with logic, facts, or common sense you resort to name calling, threats, etc, etc. Remember that you are dealing with people who base everything on feelings and emotions. It is impossible to engage them in any kind of factual, logical discussion. Mom and Dad were right, never have a battle of wits with an un-armed person.

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Bingo. Spot-on in this bit:

      Remember that you are dealing with people who base everything on feelings and emotions. It is impossible to engage them in any kind of factual, logical discussion.

      And, to that I would add, “sexually obsessed.” They project all manner of sexual inadequacy, fetishes, perversions, etc on people who have guns, when in reality they’re the people who think with their gonads about seemingly everything. Every bit of political “freedom” the left aspires to revolves around sex, and has since the 60’s.

      I like sex as much as any red-blooded American man, but I know that the bigger head has to do the serious lifting in any and all intellectual pursuits. The little head has a pretty narrow range of interests and simply doesn’t do higher math.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        Your point is in keeping with what Freud actually said about fear of guns. It isnt us who have a size isssue.

      2. avatar rlc2 says:

        Thanks Dys, well said.

      3. avatar Matt in Tx says:

        There are times I do not agree with you Gunsmith, today is not the day. Well said.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      true in part, but not the entire answer. Yes, there are many who are emotional and afraid; but then there are others who use ad hominem attacks, vitriol, and other nastiness as a tool. How did smoking become banned in many places? Dehumanizing and demonizing smokers, that’s how. As in the particularly nasty attack reported here today, gun owners are described as subhuman, stupid, racist, insane, lacking in masculinity, etc. etc. Objectify, dehumanize, and demonize, and then you can claim the moral high ground, persuading others to join your cause, browbeating governments into passing restrictive laws. So many human decisions are driven by emotion that this is a very successful technique.

  10. avatar One If By Land says:

    They say that once one side of a “debate” sinks to using profanity, underhanded tactics and lies, it means that they’re loosing the argument. Instead of having a truly educated discussion, based upon facts (which aren’t on their side), they have to resort to an emotional, violent rhetoric as a battering ram to push through their will of how other people should live. Because they have nothing backing up their position other than emotion, what choice do they have, short of giving up? But for them, there’s no giving up. Like most leftist extremists (such as Climate activists) this is the end-all, be-all of their existence…and they are on a mission to attain their goal, to justify their own existence, and self-identified importance, by any means necessary.

    1. avatar GSRpositive says:

      Really well said.

  11. avatar danthemann5 says:

    Anti-gun people and liberals in general are miserable. They’re constantly bemoaning the state of things. They’re just doing their level best to make everyone else miserable too.

  12. This is what happens in a Culture War.

    “Hardhats” threw hot rivets at anti-war protesters on 5th Ave. (I was there) When it becomes “US” v “THEM” — the “Thems” are not fully human.

    EXAMPLE: (compare with losses of white children in a US school shooting)

    Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

    Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–*we think the price is worth it*.

    –60 Minutes (5/12/96)

    1. avatar Matt in Tx says:

      I don’t disagree with your statements. I just don’t understand the point of said statements.

      1. A culture war creates an US vs THEM dynamic — the people who are “other” are dehumanized. In the War On Drugs — drug users were dehumanized and no one cared about trivial crimes generating 20 year sentences — in the War On Guns — gun owners are being dehumanized.

        And in a kinetic war — as in a culture war — enemy combatants and civilians are dehumanized

  13. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    Darkstar + 1.

  14. avatar dave says:

    In the last very brief conversation with an anti I heard this phrase.. “Cause I askeered of dem” Sorry, I walked away before obtaining the correct spelling for askeered, but I think that’s close.

    When you have people with the equivalent education of a 1st grader taking every bomb you throw as gospel… you have to be nasty to get and hold thier 3 second attention span. That is really all many seem to know, others require it to be laced with profanity, most of ‘them’ just don’t care so long as it appears to affect someone else.

  15. avatar ike says:

    That huffpost article is hilariously sad. I’m not sure if they meant to be funny, or it’s just that stupid. I don’t think any of those things applied to me.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      It’s shtick reprinted from a “second city” skit.
      I found myself chuckling.

  16. avatar John S says:

    It’s more of a progressive/culture issue. Many if not most of the anti gunners belong to the progressive ideology. This ideology has been slowly nurtured over the last 20-30 years in the colleges. This ideology leads people to believe that they have a *right* not to be offended; they have a *right* to be comfortable, that their emotions should take prescience over your rights. In a perfect world the entire day to day world would be like a college campus. No offensive speech, no due process, no dissenting opinions. They become delusional that they are entitled to all of this. When their little bubble is slightly burst they lash out like they have been trained to lash out in the colleges, your a racist, a terrorist, a misogynist, a baby killer(though not the type that aborts children!) , a person who must be beaten back into the bushes until they are either converted or afraid to ever speak out again.

    This is your enemy

    1. avatar Matt in Tx says:

      Then grammar/spelling Nazi jumped out of me. Did you mean precedence?
      Prescience is the mental power of knowing the future. Otherwise, I really agree with what you say.

  17. avatar Joe R. says:

    Because they’re unwed meth-mommas dropped them on their heads after giving birth to them on the toilet while in prison.

  18. avatar Accur81 says:

    I disagree with Paul – the gun owners I have worked with in a professional and personal capacity have universally exhibited more class than those who howl for disarmament. Why are anti gunners so nasty? I believe it is a combination of ignorance, inexperience, cowardice, and a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature.

    Most people here understand that war continuously happens, and that mass murder and genocide continues to occur throughout the world. An individual in such a situation doesn’t have much defense if they are disarmed.

  19. avatar Paul McCain says:

    Apparently some here forget a writer for TTAG, Firearm Concierge, chortled about how school shootings are good for his business and wished for more. Recall the frequent obscene remarks posted by people commenting here about MDA.

    So, if we want to whine about how nasty the “other guys” are, it rings hollow.

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      There is a difference between making jokes, and constant outright attacks — apparently you cannot tell the difference

    2. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      Chortled or remarked with an appreciation for fear and the free market system?

    3. avatar PeterK says:

      Well a-holes are everywhere. There seems to be a systemic smear campaign against gun owners, though. And I do mean outright slander and lies. Not just your typical Internet moronry.

    4. avatar rlc2 says:

      FAIL again Paul. “Proof by example” logical fallacy.

      This is school yard level taunting stuff,
      more like what I expect from hysterical progtards on the MDA lower level of that ecological food chain.

      You can do better than this.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        “You can do better than this.”

        You overestimate.

      2. Oh, look, somebody is playing “your logic is bad” using Wikipedia.


  20. avatar Tex300BLK says:

    They are nasty for the same reason my 3 year old is nasty when I tell him he cant eat cookies for breakfast. In a logical debate about the facts for and against they lose… so they result to “reductio ad absurdum” a logical fallacy wherein the arguer attempts to belittle, discredit, and write off their opponent because they don’t stand a chance on merit alone.

    Its the same reason they use profanity in their articles and vulgar ad hominem attacks on gun owners, because it shocks and distracts the reader from from what is otherwise a baseless facts-less article about nothing full of tired stereotypes and strawmen.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Uh, you are describing their behavior correctly–but “reductio ad absurdum” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Reductio ad absurdum consists of taking your opponent’s position, assuming it’s true, and then showing the utterly nonsensical logical consequences of it. If someone says A, and you can prove that if A is true, then it would logically follow that 2+2 must equal 5, then you’ve used reductio ad absurdum, since we know 2+2 doesn’t equal 5.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        “since we know 2+2 doesn’t equal 5.”

        Except in LaLa land where the teachers are not allowed to use red pens or point out their students’ mistakes (so they can correct them), which is the same place, apparently, where disarming a woman makes her safer from rapists (for example).

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Hey, I never said reductio ad absurdum would actually convince the idiot with the proposition you demolished with it; I just wanted to show what it was. 🙂

  21. avatar LJM says:

    Here’s my take on why so called “intelectual” anti’s on the left (because there ARE anti’s on the right as well and some of this applies to them as well) go to name calling and demonizing when debating gun ownership and owners. Their world view is one in which the attainment of knowledge, varying level of degrees of knowledge, or attainment social, political or economic wealth is the path to power. That is how they acheive their status in life and measure themselves against the rest of society. What college did you attend, what was your major, what job title do you hold, what professional certification did you attain, etc. etc. In their mind, it is an AFFRONT to their world view that a person who is not at their level of intellect (criminal, inner city or backwoods highschool dropout) could hold them POWERLESS with the possession of a firearm. To them, knowledge is power, socio/economic status is power… not armed defense or armed criminalization. To them, the second phrase of the famous saying, “But Samuel Colt made them equal”, offends them because their intellect, social, economic or political success shouldn’t be “equalized” by firearm possession. So what do they do, they seek to eliminate the “equalizing” power of the gun so to maintain their perceived power status.
    They refuse even the logic and stats about the gun debate because to do so, would be to objectively realize that their world view is wrong. Now those in political power realize this, and agree with Mao that all political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Its those in academia, and the supposed “intellect” of society that don’t want realize this, and thus degrade the debate into namecalling and sterotype.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      “That is how they acheive their status in life and measure themselves against the rest of society. What college did you attend, what was your major, what job title do you hold, what professional certification did you attain, etc. etc.”

      That could describe me and I carry a 1911 so I don’t have to worry about the other types holding me powerless.

  22. avatar Alpo says:

    I’m fairly certain this, in the long run, will come out as a net loss for the antis.

    When left leaning gun owners (there are plenty, believe me) who never thought much about the vileness of the left are attacked in this manner, they’re quickly disabused of the idea that their side is honest and plays fair.

    That eye-opening expereince is their road to Damascus moment. It was for me.

    Had the 2nd Amendment been respected and my gun rights not constantly threatened by these, and government, wackos, I might never have bothered to check if my team was the right one.

    So after of a lifetime of voting Dem in every election (including 2008), I now vote Libertarian or not at all. And I’m sure I’m not the only gun owning voter they’ve alienated.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “I now vote Libertarian…”


    2. avatar GuyFromV says:

      Night-Watchman State, baby.

  23. avatar Brentondadams says:

    In my opinion it comes down to the loud mouth arrogance of impotence.

    Maybe that’s not the best word to use.

    I am heavily armed, I collect guns, I carry one on my person. It’s a moral imperitive that I be calm and collected at all times. I can’t afford to go around shooting my mouth off about killing my political enemies.

    If you have the means to carry out your threats, you better not make them unless you are committed to backing them up.

  24. avatar Pascal says:

    Main Entry: righteous indignation
    Part of Speech: n
    Definition: retribution, retributive justice; anger and contempt combined with a feeling that it is one’s right to feel that way; anger without guilt

    I would also add: Moral Panic and a need to fill an emotional void by chastising others.

    1. avatar Bob Watson says:

      Pascal wins the golden ring.

      Our misguided fellow citizens are licensed to be as nasty as they please because they are filled to the brim with self-righteous outrage. They do not require critical thinking skills because they operate on a higher moral plane. Facts, reason and logic are immaterial when you have an unshakeable belief that you are right and those who disagree with you are wrong and evil. The emotional immaturity they demonstrate with their outbursts is a virtue in their eyes. Their thinking is concrete, lacking in nuance, instead they rely on stereotypes and fantasy to provide a basis for their arguments. All of this makes them perfect targets for the efforts to generate hysteria by the anti-gun propagandists who are financed by fascist billionaires.

  25. avatar TMCN says:

    Eric Hoffer made the point that in order to justify wronging someone, a person must first make them an object of hatred. Or if you already have done them wrong, a person will retroactively find a reason to hate them in order to rationalize their own behavior.
    “There is perhaps no surer way of infecting ourselves with virulent hatred toward a person than by doing him a grave injustice.” Eric Hoffer “The True Believer”

    1. avatar Daily Beatings says:

      Hate is a unifying agent according to Hoffer.

  26. avatar PeterK says:

    Mostly it’s because they are full on into the us vs them-ism that has been peddled for so long. “You are wrong, so who cares how I treat you” is basically how it works, whether unwittingly or otherwise.

    They also seem to be out of touch with reality in general, whether through honest ignorance or willful denial.

  27. avatar Dermott says:

    Why? Saul Alinsky. “Rules for Radicals’.

    You have to know your enemy, which at times our country has not done.

    Look in, or better yet, read his book.

    It doesn’t always work, and is not working for anti gunners.

    From Wiki: ” Further, his use of ARTIFICALLY STIMULOATED CONFLICT (MY CAPITALIZATION)has been criticized for its ineffectiveness in areas that thrive on unity.[7] In fact, in several Chicago areas in which he worked, his use of conflict backfired, and the community was unable to achieve the policy adjustments they were seeking.[2]”.

    Obama does the same thing. Don’t ever address the issue, obfuscate, deny, lie, change the subject, use red herrings, demonize your opponent and DO NOT carry on an adult conversation with those you disagree with.

    I’ve often thought the Demo’s and progressives are using the firearm issue to take our eye off the ball . . . . . many more Demo’s and progressives in the 1%, they love China, etc. If it weren’t for firearms, would we be looking at our government and decide we need a new one?

  28. avatar maynard b says:

    I am not sure why lefties (not just hoplophobes) are nasty about not having their way. Because, if voters made the rules in a democracy:
    Jim Crow would have lasted longer in the south.
    Many states would still only recognize heterosexual marriage.
    Keystone XL would be built by now
    BLM wouldn’t own 60% or more of the west.
    Arizona wouldn’t have as many problems with illegals (well, they would be different problems)
    Obamacare would have died in 2010
    The Surge wouldn’t have happened and ISIS/ISIL would have had an eight year head start.

  29. avatar Sammy says:

    And the one thing the Huffington (com)post compensates for: Objective journalism.

  30. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    When people who think that they know best and that everyone should just do as they say don’t get their way they get frustrated and lash out. Open minded analitical thinkers don’t support gun control because they can see that it doesn’t work. The people who do support gun control are either too emotional to objectively look into the facts or part of the statist elites who wish to keep the common folk defensless and dependent on their taxpayer funded generosity.

    1. avatar Matt in Tx says:


  31. avatar bontai Joe says:

    Why are they so nasty? My theory is that they have looked around and don’t see a world full of unicorns and rainbows. If the unicorns and rainbows are gone, then someone must have taken them. It can’t be them, so it must be us that took them away. Anyway, that’s my theory……

  32. avatar Paul McCain says:

    The irony is strong here.

  33. avatar DBM says:

    Ever notice how lefties always start screaming when you disagree with them. I love baiting them and pointintg out its the left and the demoncrats tht have always been the racists. When they scream and call me racist I them them they sound silly and irrational. The real fun starts when they deside to through in homophobe with racist. I just calmly tell them loud enough for other to hear that once again they are being irrational and that I truly don’t care which guy in the office they are having sex with during lunch.:-)

  34. avatar Jarhead51 says:

    Unfortunately the only way to convert some liberals to our side ( I say some because most are pigheaded) is for a CCer to have to save their life in the streets.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      is for a CCer privately armed individual to have to save their life in the streets.

      FIFY and I agree.

  35. avatar GringoFusilero says:

    Anti-gunners do not deserve our respect. They do not deserve our politeness. They want to disarm us by force. They want to see us locked in cages for possessing the tools to defend our homes and families.

    These are people who have suggested that the solution to the Bundy ranch standoff was a Predator drone. These are people who have laughed as “right wing fanatics” were murdered by the state at Ruby Ridge and Waco.

    They are our enemies. They deserve every ounce of our vitriol.

  36. avatar former water walker says:

    The bad guys never face anything bad no matter what they say. Every day the good guy gun folks are threatened with death & destruction. Maybe Firearms Concierge was a mite gleeful (not a fan ) but he didn’t threaten anyone. And it boggles my mind the anti’s vitriol is directed at heavily armed men. -1 rev.

  37. avatar Silentbrick says:

    The answer to their nastiness is simple. In order to be human, one must have a soul. Give up your humanity and you give up your soul. Look at what they say, what they are fine with. Genocide as long as the ‘right’ people survive. Letting murderers and rapists free while jailing or calling for death for those who would defend themselves against such predators. Why do we expect humanity from those who have so happily given it up?

    1. avatar rlc2 says:

      I think you are on to something here- and not to go OT on religion, but its part of it- if you believe in a higher power, and moral right and wrong, as laid out in a set of principles and guidelines that are bigger than you, as an individual, then you have a structural framework that respects others, as human beings, equal under god, with equal rights whether you believe that other person to be misinformed or not.

      If you do not have a belief system that somehow puts you, the individual in place as part of a network of equally flawed human beings, under a rule of law that respects all,

      but, instead you are somehow allowed to elevate yourself to a more god like position, then naturally you are going to feel the right to act judgementally and even illegally toward others, even if you disclaim responsibility for what the political group does on your behalf.

      I am not saying it well here, but I believe the Founders were examples of the first group, above, who very carefully framed the Constitution and BOR to avoid the excesses of the second group, that they saw in their experience, in the rulers and elite tyrrany of the state in Europe, and validated in the excesses of the mob in the French Revolution in 1789.

  38. avatar rlc2 says:

    Here is a useful bit of historical reference on the orgins of Progressives 2.0.

    Read Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg for more:

    Why are they nasty? Because the left has long enamored itself of the idea that since their ideas are obviously superior, that makes them superior people.

    Its not much of a stretch from there to mistreat those beneath you, verbally, or physically. History is full of examples, as in the first generation of progressives here in the US, including strains of nasty racisim, including the anti-semitism, as it evolved from the liberals in Britain, pre World War 2,
    or as mutated into now revered icons of the left/feminists, like Margaret Sanger, who publicly advocated eugenics in birth control on negroes, are examples, that todays glib youthful progressives dont learn in progtard propagandized high school history, never mind the tranzi-pomo revisionist progressive nonsense peddled in most of academia.

    Never Again.

    1. avatar rlc2 says:

      One more- there was a lot of principled debate in the 90s about the philosophical underpinnings of progressive thought. A sample, here

  39. avatar Parnell says:

    I never realized, until I saw websites like this Americans Against the Tea Party, how many mentally-challenged individuals appear to have the right to vote in this country.

    1. avatar rlc2 says:

      Just another example of the organized agit prop done by community organizers on the left, funded and strategized deliberately for some time, by groups like Center for American Progress.

      Make no mistake- Progressives have been at this for decades, and are playing for keeps. The Senate elections this year, and the Presidential election in 2016 will be seen as turning points, for good or evil, depending on where you stand, for personal freedom vs the State.

  40. avatar Fred says:

    Some anti-gun individuals are so aggressive, nasty, and potentially violent because they have serious issues they refuse to address. They would rather start a fight to the death to distract themselves from their issues than face them for a second. Talking about a topic relating to personal responsibility and development sets them off and puts them into the “I’m perfect the rest of the world is the problem” zone. They also think they are entitled to a world that takes care of them without providing anything. They would rather fix every problem in the world (which is quite impossible) before taking a look at themselves.

  41. avatar Daily Beatings says:

    Voters make the rules? What about proposition 8 in California? Tyranny of the majority has been the evil of democracy going back to the time of Plato and Aristotle.

  42. avatar Philip Mehegan says:

    Did anyone else notice that after the video many of the recommended videos were by the Brady campaign?

  43. avatar allen says:

    to me curse words or name calling is used when you cant think of anything intelligent to say to back up what you say.

  44. avatar JimFromTheWoods says:

    Guys, Second City is a comedy organization.

    This is parody.

  45. Oh, boo-hoo, anti-gunner are so mean!

    And they rightly can say the same about many of us.

    I don’t get the point of this post.

  46. avatar CT Resident says:

    The answer is pretty simple. It is merely a propaganda technique to dehumanize law abiding gun-owners. I cut and pasted part of an article from a “blog … associated with an Honors course at the University of North Florida” that summarizes the idea fairly clearly. Just replace “politician” with anyone using these tactics.

    “Psychology of War: Changing Minds-Society

    Dehumanization through propaganda
    Throughout history, politicians have used propaganda to dehumanize the enemy. By doing this, politicians trick their followers into believing that the enemy deserves to be killed, for they are portrayed in the propaganda as being murderers, rapists, or just plain scum. The result then is that the people are more willing to engage in war against the enemy since they have a firm belief that the enemy should be out-right eliminated.”


  47. avatar John Dennis says:

    Why are anti-gunners so nasty? Because an armed society is a polite society. A disarmed society.. Well, it’s not hard to figure that one out.

  48. avatar Red Sox says:

    The people who want ‘Gun control’ (read confiscation) are the very people the second amendment was designed to protect us from.

  49. avatar Richard says:

    It is not surprising that the nay Sayers got the part about racism wrong because they have all the rest wrong too.

    By perpetuating gun control, it is they who perpetuate one of the last remnants of racism while it is we who advocate the restoration of rights too long denied.

  50. avatar DarkEnigma says:

    Seriously though, can we please get rid of La Pierre? Worst public speaker in the history of ever.

    1. avatar Richard says:

      Amen to getting rid of La Pierre. The NRA is almost irrelevant now anyway. I can’t recall the particulars of the last statement of his I heard as it was so disgusting I don’t want to remember, but unless the policies of the NRA are changed quickly, it is past time for an overthrow of the people running it. A reorganization is in order. The way things are presently, there is no one accountable to any particular group and it is evident that cronyism is rampant.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email