Previous Post
Next Post

“This website,, is written by a fellow named Bruce Krafft, who seems to have a great deal of time on his hands, and a willingness to devote it all to promoting his passion (which he deems a matter of “civil rights”). The site is at least more intelligent, more articulate and more adult (despite its haughty dismissal of dissenting voices, even of the most respectful and regularly contributing sort, as “trolls”) than most assemblages of firearm fanatics. It even makes some valid points. If you seek propaganda to quote in support of your gun habit that doesn’t make you sound like a blithering devotee of Beck or Rush, this is the place to get it. But it’s still quite prone to misinformation, misinterpretation and faulty reasoning.” – Gun Culture Fires Back – With

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Ahhh, yes. More sneering pecksniffery from academics.

    I’m thoroughly enjoying watching the imminent collapse of the higher education bubble, when truckloads of these jacksnipes will be forced to find employment in fields that produce tangible results.

      • I thought it was those who cant went to the military? That seems to be a popular target demographic for recruiters. And when they get out of the military, they go to working as LEOs, continuing to feed their entire lives off the governments tit.

        • Hah… I was an abject failure as a college student and didn’t want to continue sponging off my parents. So I joined the military. Almost 30 years later after Grenada, Panama, 3 1/2 years in Korea, Desert Storm, Desert Shield, 6 years in Germany, Bosnia, Kosovo, two tours in Iraq, I might have actually learned to learn to do something else.

          Flying helicopters ain’t that hard. College dropouts can learn to do it.

        • Yeah, those wars had little to do with the actual security of the USA. Which is exactly what Ron Paul is talking about. Uncle who flew B-26s, learned to fly choppers during the 50s and he was not a rocket scientist.

        • “I thought it was those who cant went to the military?”
          Eat it. I scored a 31 on the ACT. After 8 years in the military I got out and got a degree in mechanical engineering. Your theory = shot to hell.

        • Quite so. To be fair, I spent 2 years in college before joining up. Most of that was spent smoking dope, drinking beer and chasing girls.

        • My theory is shot to hell? Really, so let me get this right, everyone you served with had similar scores? And as you said, you got a college degree afterwards, was it paid for with the GI Bill or other government loan/grant/benefit/etc? If so that would help reaffirm the last part of my post.

        • Um, how is a mechanical engineer at a nuclear power plant “feeding off the government tit”? Before you claim subsidization, please do your research.

        • How did you pay for college, was it the GI Bill or other government subsidies? Did your fellow service members have similar scores, or would my description of them be accurate? What powerplant do you work at? Would you have been able to get that job if your education wasnt subsidized by the government or mommie and daddy?

        • So how about you answer that question about your fellow service members, or what enabled you to be where you are today? You know as much as I do its true.

        • Whoa, I don’t think I’ve ever seen one of these stretched out to one word per line before. Kinda neat lol.

        • “And when they get out of the military, they go to working as LEOs, continuing to feed their entire lives off the governments tit.”
          Yes. Your theory is shot to hell. Next question?

        • What do you have aginst those who serve in the military Matt? You sound like a lawyer with an ‘I eat shit for a dime’ grin. What should they do, join the unemployed, or the Occupy movement?

    • This person may not even be an academic. They’ve gone to some length to hide their identity – even concealing the registrar information for their site. But there’s nothing to indicate that they’re actually a professor of anything. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is another Lefty blogger claiming a bogus academic standing.

      If you read some of the other posts, they’re all just boilerplate left-wing cant. They’re not really putting forward arguments or evidence, simply dismissing their opponents based on their implied authority as a ‘professor’.

      • If you want to try to find out, email the address listed on the whois info, they’ll forward it to the real owner. Say something about the DMCA or some such and generally they’ll reply to you. Also his private registration service is known to provide third parties with their customers info if you want to snail mail a cease a desist or serve them with process.

  2. I wonder if this jackass ever takes a look at the far more dismissive, faulty, and illogical gun-grabber sites? I’m betting not – like any good propagandist, he’s only interested in his own agenda.

    Hilariously ironic that his “mission” to provide only facts and condemn those that “do your thinking for you” is actively presenting only one side of an argument in a slanted and very skewed sense.

    Perhaps if he tried some real thought he’d realize that the only true way to be impartial is to point to certain sites, like this one, and say “this is a pro-gun site, go check it out and come to your own conclusion.” But he won’t do that because he’s an agenda-driven propagandist, moreso than any he decries on his pathetic site.

    • I hate to admit it, but I think I agree with Silver. While reading the Professor’s description of this site, I wondered if he’d be able to say just about the same of mine, not that I put myself in the same category, not at all.

  3. Hey, RF — when did Bruce take over TTAG? I didn’t get the memo.

    This website,, is written by a fellow named Bruce Krafft

    That’s some fabulous research right there. I have to say that is precisely what we’ve come to expect from American academia — namely, world class stupid.

  4. If this gentlemen is so confident this blog is flowery propaganda and that the 2nd Amendment is wrongly interpreted, let us settle the matter like scientists-with real world experimentation.Let us give both the unnamed author of the ‘Propaganda Professor’ and an appropriately armed Mr Farago keys to brand new Bentleys and have the writers drive their vehicles in the worst part of Memphis TN at 2:00 AM-without cell phones or communication devices.

    The author who returns their vehicle with the least amount of damage with the lesser injuries to their person is considered the winner of the debate.

    • This is exactly the kind of nudge-and-a-wink racism that the “professor” is referring to. This kind of language (and equally inflammatory and unreasonable rhetoric in opposition to gun ownership rights) prevents the formation of a nuanced, compromise driven mainstream rhetoric around gun culture and self defense. I look forward to the return of the day when participation in shooting sports, and gun ownership are not in and of themselves seen as indications of a political inclination. I’m really tired of having to hear about the (vaguely racist) immanent apocalypse ever time I purchase a firearm or firearm accessory, or spend my Saturday at the range. Jeez. Maybe I’m hanging out with the wrong shooters?_Daniel Meyers

      • Naunced and compromise driven rhetoric? I guess you want a friendly discussion with your neighborhood leftist about which of your rights you’re willing to give up in order to get him to like you.

        While you’re doing that, please find out which of his rights he’s willing to give up so that you will like him. I’ll bet it’ll be a short list.

        Of course, your comment might be sarcasm, in which case it’s pretty good.

        • As your neighborhood leftist, I don’t want you to give up any rights. You think I’m your enemy, but you are mistaken. You would be surprised by how many of us on the (relatively) far left absolutely support gun rights. It’s the mainstream “middle” you’ve got to watch out for. Nanny state liberals and authoritarian conservatives are two sides of the same coin.

        • I don’t think you’re my enemy, but I do think that you, being a leftist, enable my enemies and enemies of my (our) nation, what with the left’s relentless assault on the family and common decency and basically every institution of our society.

      • Absolutely. A lefty friend of mine actually quit a local rifle club because he got fed up with the non-stop racism/homophobia, etc. (and they gave him grief about his hybrid car). This is a guy who owns more firearms than anyone else I know – he had to shore up his floor joists to support his gun safe. While some gun stores are totally professional and set the politics aside, others are downright creepy with their racist innuendo.

        I might not agree with you on the notion of “compromise” (hasn’t worked out well for the Left lately), but the gun rights movement really has an image problem, and in many respects this is deserved.

        • An ironic statement, as many of the social problems we suffer from in the country are the realized consequences of leftist policies. Poverty knows no race , and a welfare state knows no color.

        • As a lefty, I’ll say that our country’s problems belong to all of us. Asigning blame is not the solution. Lets solve the problems. That said, I blame decades of right-wing policies for our troubles. Sadly, agreement is nearly impossible.

    • TTAG has a weird anti-spam system. I’ve seen warnings when I post that it waiting for mod approval, that it is spam, and another system which doesnt even warn you. The latter usually happens when I correctly spell ‘fcuk’.

      Copy your post to notepad, and start posting it paragraph (or sentence) by paragraph until you figure out where it thinks it is spam or inappropriate. Its a bitch, but you can post that way. I’ve brought it up numerous times to RF.

  5. I find it odd that being passionate about a hobby would constitute an “addiction.” I’m not nearly as into guns as a hobby as most people here – I shoot a few times a year, and I hunt. I’m more interested in the politics. But by this guy’s reasoning, there’s something wrong with anyone who’s passionate about anything – model railroading, golf, needlepoint, whatever. Yes, there are creepy gun nuts out there (we’ve all met them), but they would be creepy with or without guns – guns aren’t creepy, creeps are creepy.

    One area where he does have a point – “…gun culture, like the culture of right-wing extremism with which it is so closely allied, is fueled by paranoia and divisiveness. There must always be a THEM out there somewhere, intent upon taking away one’s guns and one’s freedom (which are one and the same of course), and destroying one’s country and violating one’s daughters, etc. etc. etc. etc.” He exaggerates, of course, but as I often point out, there is a great deal of hostility in much of the “gun culture” (a loaded term, I know) toward any view that diverges from a certain right-wing, Fox News orthodoxy. This does not help the cause. There are, of course, left-leaning gun groups and blogs, but they are small by comparison. Also, the amount of racism, sexism, and homophobia expressed by some on this site is enough to turn off a lot of people with a nascent interest in guns.

    Ultimately, I don’t think the gun rights movement can win in the Supreme Court unless it wins in the court of public opinion, and we’ve got a ways to go there.

    • This does not help the cause.

      NCG, it depends on how you define “the cause.” Gun rights should not be considered in a vacuum. They are just a part of that whole liberty thing that so many people hate or fear. So yes, I am hostile to views that diverge too far afield, because such views are dangerous and antithetical to any reasonable notion of freedom.

      Without “hostile” people in the fight, there wouldn’t be a gun left in America. No matter what lies you’ve been told, politics isn’t the art of compromise. Politics is the art of confrontation. So I confront, and I’m not apologizing for my hostility.

      • I agree that gun rights should be considered as a matter of civil rights in general, and I applaud those branches of the ACLU that are coming around to this point of view.

        I also agree that politics is the art of confrontation – the Left in this country has seldom made progress by other means – labor rights, civil rights, the anti-war movement, the ’99 Seattle protests, all started with committed individuals putting themselves in harm’s way, and generally being subjected to State violence (and yes, maybe committing a little mayhem of their own). We see the same thing with the OWS folks. You may not agree with them, but there they are, confronting.

        What gets me is the general right-wing complacency about so many things I see as grave threats to our freedom – the Patriot Act, the ever-expanding power of the executive branch to detain people (including U.S. citizens) indefinitely, or simply kill them, out-of-control militarism and endless war, near total corporate control of our political process, insanely high rates of incarceration, and on and on. These things will only get worse, regardless of who occupies the White House or controls congress, unless there is real popular resistance. Most Libertarians will agree with me on these issues, except for the corporate control thing.

        So, I think we agree extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, but we may have different notions of what constitutes liberty.

        • I actually agree with many of your stances of which you spoke about. I am really not a right wing person, just that I am not very PC either. Yeah, I have supported the Libertarians since 1980.

        • What gets me is the general right-wing complacency about so many things I see as grave threats

          Now you’re really on to something, NCG. It’s really not about TPA per se; it’s about power. The more of it that’s collected by the few, the more likely it is to be horribly abused.

          The Goldwater quote is still appropriate, even after nearly 50 years. Here’s another one by the same man:

          Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies.

        • True, and I would say this applies to the concentration of economic, as well as political power, to the limited extent that the two are separate. He who has the gold makes the rules. This is at the heart of the OWS beef.

      • “Ultimately, I don’t think the gun rights movement can win in the Supreme Court unless it wins in the court of public opinion, and we’ve got a ways to go there.”

        How do you explain D.C. vs. Heller?

    • The simple fact is there always IS a “them.” There will never be lasting peace of any kind. There will always be something for two groups to fight over, there will always be crime, and there will always be power-hunger. Therefore, there will always be a need to be armed.

  6. I assume y’all actually went to his website and poked around more than reading that one blog post. This guy is an absolute blowhard – illiterate & ineloquent. His arguments are reminiscent of a battle long lost and reek of failure.

    I assume it’s a male, and only one of them.

  7. Funny how this website that is supposed to be doing our thinking for us regularly asks for our own opinions, and then will repost a real good rebuttal and possibly redact a statement if proven wrong. Really sounds like propaganda to me.

  8. Clearly, the “propaganda professor” is an anti, despite his rejection of the label.
    However, like so many “antis,” he rejects the availability of firearms to the law-abiding, while not offering even a whiff of a suggestion of what sort of sensible alternatives we should use instead of guns for self-defense.

  9. The Prof says:

    “The alarm bells start playing a sonata as soon as he mentions the present blog, summarizing its posts about the gun culture thus:

    The Propaganda Professor – Gun owners are racist and unrealistic about self-defense.

    I suppose the second part is a fair enough conclusion about my commentary. But racist? Where did I ever say that gun owners are racist? Exactly nowhere. …”

    Okay so in the piece I fisked the Prof says (about a fictitious DGU):

    “For an added touch of realism, the names and ages of the offenders are also included, and their names are -whaddaya know- Hispanic. (Paranoia about THEM wanting to harm us dovetails neatly with paranoia about THEM invading our borders and taking over our country)”

    If that isn’t saying we’re racist, what is it saying?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here