Previous Post
Next Post

Screen Shot 2014-07-03 at 3.12.59 PM

We talked about doing it. We thought about doing it. And now we finally really did it. We collected some of the antis’ more offensive comments for TTAG readers’ dining and dancing pleasure. Well, “we” didn’t do it; Travis Pike’s done did it on our behalf. We’re running this feature to highlight the antis’ insanity and remind the pro-gun side that they’re facing intransigence with a capital WTF. Today, it’s death to the NRA underneath an image [above] dissing America’s oldest civil rights advocacy group on the Campaign to Stop Gun Violence’s Facebook page . . .

Thor Backus





Previous Post
Next Post


    • Uh, they’ve been full-retard. Since conception, even, as a lot of them were probably even born into the same kind of social and intellectual retardation that they’re happily foisting onto the rest of us.

      What’s worse is that for all the posturing they do, and that is literally all of their knowingly-empty threats are or will ever amount to, they don’t even want to get their own hand dirty. Notice how they’re all always asking for “someone” to do it? They’re such prissy, candy-assed cowards that they can’t — or won’t — take care of their light work.

      The sub-Human filth on the DailyKos, Democratic Underground, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc., are all cut from the same cloth, too. That’s why I don’t worry about what they say, because we all know that they know that we know (so everybody knows!) that they aren’t going to do jack-fucking-shit now or at any point in the near or distant future.

      Hell, I’m even willing to wager that most of them wouldn’t even lift a finger to save themselves or their own families lest they offend the faux sensibilities of their peers. Much less their own.

      • The thing they never mention is that Wayne, and all the rest of us that they want dead, have weapons for self defense. And most of them would piss their panties if they touched a gun. The rest have guns for self defense and don’t want us peons to have them but know better than to confront someone that actually knows how to use one.

    • They went beyond that…

      Barf: What the hell was that?
      Lonestar: Spaceball 1.
      Barf: They’ve gone to plaid!

  1. This is just the tip of the iceberg. For years now, I have seen far more hatred from the anti-gun crowd than any other political interest group.

    • “This is just the tip of the iceberg.”

      Yup, those comments are pretty tame compared to most of the comments over at the DailyKos or DemUnderground or CNN or etc, etc, etc.

    • They spew not just hatred, but violence. Anti-gunners are the most violent political group in the country.

      • It’s okay though, because they don’t have guns and without guns, people can’t be killed. So, it’s just idle threats.

        • No, not it’s not okay. They do have guns, after all, because the police do. They want to use the police against us, and desperately want to convince us that we can’t out-match the police, in spite of that all-consuming and inescapable fact that we not only out-number all local, state, federal, and international police forces combined by many, many times but we also out-gun them by the same margin.

          What that being said, and I will even allude to my comment to bigred2989 up there, I’m not worried about what they say because in any case — and regardless of however you slice it and who you have doing the slicing — we would win every single confrontation hands-down and have plenty of bodies and guns and gear to spare. They also don’t have the balls to initiate it, either, so I’m not even worried about fighting them from the get-go.

          It’s just pure posturing from sexist, racist, anti-Semitic bigots that falsely profess to be the most “tolerant” people on the planet. They’re so tolerant, in fact, that they’ll have you and your whole family killed just to prove a point.

        • @Excedrine:

          Slow that high horse to a trot, kiddo. His comment was dripping with sarcasm and now you look like a damn fool.

        • WRH may be sarcastic but Excedrin probably is correct in that the anti civilian gun statists do want the government to do the dirty work on their behalf. The antis really just bay and bleat like the sheep in Animal Farm to give the pigs an opportunity to let loose the dogs of war on us so as to grab more power.

        • They intend to use the guns of government. They love the guns of government. They are control freaks.

      • These days it tends to be the political progressives in general.

        For a group that supposedly is into peace and love, they’re pretty big on getting armed government personnel to stomp on those with any view they don’t like.

        Not really a very open minded group of people, and not just about guns.

    • apparently you have not been paying attention to the animal rights activists, climate change activist and environmentalist.

      IMHO, sometime they are all the same group with the same “kill someone” attitude

    • And how do you suppose they will kill the NRA? Oh I know magical unicorns that fart rainbows… No better yet double rainbows.

      • They are statists so of course the want the government to kill all of the NRA members. They don’t want to have blood on their hands themselves, someone else will need to do the dirty work.

        • I have always been suspicious of anyone who talks a great deal about stopping violence. They are the ones who will quickly resort to brute force and justify it in their own minds.

      • They will literally kill the NRA with the goodness of the government police state using drone strikes, MRAPS, SWAT teams and other militarized government agencies. The antis will never do the dirty work themselves.

    • Good thing they ain’t armed.. Only thing worse than stupid — is armed and stupid.

  2. He who sacrifice a freedom deserves neither.

    We live in an age where guns can be made with 3d printers and parts requiring no background check can be bought online. If you take my guns (as unlikely that is to happen), I will simply print guns and so will millions of others. Gun control can never achieve what they so desire without a violent dictatorship.

    I will die next to my guns before giving them up. Will they do the same in the name of gun control? I doubt it. They can’t win really. It’s almost funny watching them try, but very scary at the same time.

    • People have always been able to create their own weapons; zip guns have been around for decades.

      • Guns are extremely basic technology:springs, levers, ratchets, etc. Building a good quality gun takes skill, but the technology required is almost medieval. If guns were outlawed completely, anyone with access to the tool sufficient to make a bicycle would also have the tools to make a gun.

        There are guys making submachine guns in the slums in Brazil. There are guys making AK-47s in huts in Afghanistan. If it needed to go underground here, there would be guys making guns in back alleys and barns.

        • Don’t forget the illegal machine shops in China churning out knives and 1911s by the crate. Or the back-alley drill and presses that make scrap steel and sheet metal into (some actually pretty decent) full-auto FCGs for their pilfered M16s, and P226 copies. Need I even mention Kyber Pass in Pakistan where basement gunsmiths turn scraps into AK, RPKs, and PKMs with literally nothing more than simple hand tools, up to and including making their own and complete steel-cased ammunition by hand?

          Please. We have more bonafide machinists, welders, and engineers per-capita than any place else on Earth. It would be no huge challenge for any of them to make a lot of perfectly serviceable weapons.

        • Hell, it’s even possible to make a small gun out of just a clothes pin (albeit, it doesn’t fire bullets like a regular firearm, it can launch stuff like a lit match or toothpick or other things of that nature with plenty of force).

    • The point of the gun control is to enable the violent dictatorship, so I don’t think that’s a downside to them. Oh…and their socialist utopian dictatorship is only going to be violent to those who express any dissent or provide less than 100% compliance, so it will be a wonderful place. Think 1984 before Winston meets Julia: paradise.

  3. Can someone explain to me why people think the NRA is the evil monster under the bed? I really don’t get it…..

    • The simple answer: It fits their ‘rainbows and unicorns’ narrative better. They can’t actually point fingers at the individuals that are behind most of the homicide and violence in this country without turning in their prog-card, so it’s easier to point a finger at the racist, monocle-wearing OFWG’s at the NRA.

    • Most people don’t. As RF has posted, most Americans have a positive view of the NRA. It has better approval numbers than Obama and Congress combined! And of those who have a negative view, very few think it’s a terrorist organization.

      These people are more akin to the flat earth movement, or moon landing deniers. They have this extreme form of crazy that enables them to believe in this conspiratorial crap. Big shadowy boogie monsters organizations are working against them.

      • Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you. Case-in-point: the NSA, FBI, BATFE, IRS, etc., continually over-stepping their bounds with absolute impunity because there is no accountability with the government at any level at all. That’s why American’s trust in government in general, much less in Congress or the Presidency, is at historic lows and still falling.

        At least with special interest groups and corporations, they can’t (and won’t) stick a gun to your head and force you to buy certain products or believe their propaganda.

        That’s what gun-grabbers want to be able to do with the government since they know (but will never admit) that corporations can’t and won’t, since they don’t even want to get their own hands dirty.

    • Because, to fit there agenda and way of operating, they need an evil “something” That evil something to them is the NRA.

      The reality is there thousands of grass roots organizations and all they did was pick the biggest one — that is all.

      Their mistake, if the NRA goes away tomorrow there are still thousands of gun owners and gun rights group.

      • Many leftists have similar fantasies. For instance, the global warming types believe Big Oil is funding all the so-called skeptics. There’s no other way to explain how all those oceans of government research and propaganda money still have not convinced most people that global warming is a danger.

        The reality is that Big Oil has contributed orders of magnitude more cash to green causes than to the opposition. But believing in these conspiracy fantasies allows leftists to maintain their righteous victim status, and the myth that they are the heroes in a great struggle to defeat evil powers that threaten all mankind. Some commentators who look at this phenomenon call it a form of mental illness; not sure I’d go that far, but most leftists sure don’t want to hear any fact that might be contrary to their world view.

    • Their movement needs a boogie man. It falls in line with the leftist anti corporation ideology.

    • The believe that if it weren’t for the NRA they would be able to pass all their utopian anti-gun bills.

      They don’t realize that the NRA is only politically powerful because millions of voters, even non-member voters, vote for gun rights, and contact their congress people about it.

      Their side is strictly astroturf, so they can’t really believe that there are any real grass-roots groups that oppose them

      • What is truly ironic is that most of them don’t know (or chose to conveniently ignore) is the fact that many of their dystopian gun control laws currently on the books right now simply wouldn’t have been passed in legislation except for support from organizations like the NRA, a la the NFA ’34 and GCA ’68, for example. And it was SAAMI and the NSSF that helped draft the first iterations of what would later become the federal Assault Weapons Ban of ’94 in 1989.

        • … many of their dystopian gun control laws currently on the books right now simply wouldn’t have been passed in legislation except for support from organizations like the NRA, a la the NFA ’34 and GCA ’68, for example. And it was SAAMI and the NSSF that helped draft the first iterations of what would later become the federal Assault Weapons Ban of ’94 in 1989

          I don’t call that ironic – I put it somewhere between tragic and horrifying.

        • The only difference between tragic/horrifying and humorously ironic is how twisted your sense of humor is.

          • Sick humor is one thing, but I don’t consider the loss of our Creator-Given rights to be a laughing matter, thanks anyway.

            Speaking of humor, Is this funny?

      • “They don’t realize that the NRA is only politically powerful because millions of voters, even non-member voters, vote for gun rights, and contact their congress people about it.”

        And that’s it right there Scott. These dour, self-righteous control freaks are utterly incapable of imagining that most Americans support the individual right to self-defense, and are perfectly comfortable with firearms.

  4. “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.”

    Truth to be said, there are some categories that suffer from clear psychological disorders. Anti-gun movement is one of those categories.
    As a matter fact, I’ve rarely seen so much violence and leaning towards aggressive behavior than in social/ideological groups that “fight for peace and non-violence”. A lot of repressed aggression, I reckon. Instead of controlling their aggressive impulses(you cannot control nor educate what you don’t admit that exists), they repress them, therefore big problems “up in the attic”.

    There is a saying that goes like this: “they came to fight for peace, and no stone was left in place.”

    • That brings to mind a Vietnam Era slogan:
      Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.

  5. How dare they besmirch the good name of the Cigarette Smoking Man, and by extension Scully, Mulder and Skinner.

    • They could even run a “racy” version of this where they gather up every time the anti-liberty folk reference genitals.

        • Wouldn’t be too hard. Each Huff Po piece usually has at least one full string of sexist insults directed at male gun owners.

    • Those are hippies…

      You’re confusing left learning, uber-trendy, liberal statist with peace and love hippies. Big difference.

      • All those hippies grew up, have houses in the suburbs, and put their money into mutual funds. They just ruined it.

      • “You’re confusing left learning, uber-trendy, liberal statist with peace and love hippies. Big difference.”

        More Rham Emmanuel and less Wavy Gravy. Their liberalness is expressed only in the particulars of their consumer lifestyle.

  6. Actual reality: cigarettes don’t kill people. People choosing to smoke cigarettes over period of time greatly increases those people risks of life threatening conditions, including cancer, any of which can kill them. But no, cigarettes, by themselves, just sit in a pack on a shelf doing nothing without human intervention.

    Edited to add: it’s tough to put that on an image macro, however.

    • lol Yea I was about to say something along those lines as well, its not ACTUALLY the cigarettes ha

      Youre very correct, WAY too much logic for a meme.

    • It always bothers me how overly simplified the progressive worldview seems to be. And if you take the time to elaborate such points in a debate then all of a sudden you’r “confusing the issue” or somesuch.

  7. How the cover poster should actually read:
    Progressive Logic: People don’t give themselves cancer the cigarette does it for them.

  8. Anybody else notice that since the Church of Antismokerism was established as the National Religion, and they’ve turned smokers into pariahs, that those pesky people are _still_ getting cancer? Nowadays they’re blaming asbestos.

    Cancer is caused by denied self-hatred.

    • +1 on that!

      BTW, the transformation of rights in obligations began with the smoking legislation. “It is for the health of people!”
      And so, a major legal precedent was set: overreach of the state in private matters, private choices and private property.

      Also, I remember when I was a student that I saw a World Health Organisation report about smoking, report based on 25 years of study and data, worldwide. The conclusion was: “There is no solid proof that smoking is culpable even for a part of the diseases usually associated with smoking. Incidence of those disease among all categories of population, regardless of smoking/exposure to cigarettes smoke or not, is the same, without any significant variations.”
      That study I found in a cabinet, put at the bottom of the drawer, while looking for some charts of some patients. I was during the mandatory practice (for students) within a health institution.
      I regret I did not make a copy of it, because afterwards I found out that it was not a public report.

      • How long ago was this, though? Do you remember how old the report was? And, do you remember the name of the report? I’ll bet you it’s out there somewhere. If I ever get a copy of it, I’ll torrent the Hell out of it just for shits and giggles.

        • I was in on those major money-grab antismokerist litigations around 1990-ish. I was a “document coder.” (glorified data entry operator.) I saw documents that refuted all of the antismoker claims, but Henry Waxman (the Harry Anslinger of the second-hand-smoke madness) and the EPA had a hair up their arses, and wanted to nail those evil, greedy tobacco companies. The EPA violated their own rules of statistics just so they could catch enough outliers to even allege a correlation between smoking and any other problem.

          What happened was, in the 1970’s “energy crisis,” there was a huge movement to stop air leaks from buildings, to “save energy.” The result was “sick building syndrome,” where the lack of ventilation caused the build up of all the nasty stuff like dust mite feces, volatile organic compounds (like carpet glue), “human effluvia,” and so on, and so rather than solve the lack of ventilation, they attacked the most visible indicator of lack of ventilation, namely, cigarette smoke. That didn’t solve any of the problems, it just started a new religious cult.

          As far as smoking and cancer, when you look at personality type and cancer, the type A (rigid, dogmatic, no emotional outlet, get ulcers) get most of it, type B (ordinary Joe Schmo) and C (airy-fairy, artsy-fartsy), not so much. The correlation with smoking drops down to noise.

          My own hypothesis: Cancer is caused by denied self-hatred.

        • I’ve always just assumed that it was really only smokers with rare vulnerabilities to some of the chemicals added to tobacco that regularly developed any major smoke-related illnesses and issues, and mostly in heavy smokers to boot.

          It’s sure as shit not healthy at all to do, that’s for sure, and it does cause some lung damage in people that don’t smoke themselves (my mother being one of them). But, I just can’t see it as a primary cause and it certainly doesn’t happen often enough throughout the entire smoking population to make that kind assertion unless you include every single possible outlier and make a torturously-stretched correlation — and as we all know by now, ladies n’ germs, correlation doesn’t mean causation.

        • @ Excedrine: I saw/read the report in year 2001. The report was from around mid ’90’s. ’94-’95, If my memory is correct. The title of it was quite a long one, and, truth to be said, I was used to ignore titles stretching for more than half a page.
          What I know for sure is that it was part of an much ample report, regarding global health issues, separated in specific topics. I had found only the section about smoking, but I remember that on the third page was a long list of sections, including food related diseases, general pollution related health issues, etc. It was quite a long list of sections, but when I asked about them, all I received in return were some polite smiles. Even this report, I was instructed to put it back in the drawer, by the chief of clinic(btw, it was his office and his cabinet drawer where I found it, being sent by him to look for some old charts). I asked for that report and for the other sections of it, but with all power of persuasion, the response was negative, reply being “mind your own business, or you consider you have to much free time during practice hours?”. I even tried to “borrow” it, with the next chance, but the report was no longer in the drawer I found it the other time.
          Afterwards, I’ve looked for info on the subject, for any data, but I couldn’t come to any results. All that I succeeded, at best, was to receive some meaningful smiles when asking certain questions to certain specialists. The same kind of smiles I received when I was raising some reasonable doubts about some diseases and the indicators taken into consideration for diagnosis, especially in mental health issues, where a lot of diseases have a questionable base for diagnosis.

      • What’s really interesting is that most of the cigarette extortion money from the manufacturers went nowhere near where it was supposed to go – it went to the Libs’ pet projects. Now that smoking is a social disease and “shunned” by all “right thinking people,” the Libs are whining because the extortion money stream and the tax money stream from cigarette sales are both drying up.

        Moral: Be careful what you wish for.

  9. One is a consumable item… the other is a tool….. apples and oranges… not that the antis are morally upstanding enough to admit the difference.

  10. I love the irony of that poster. The actor, William B. Davis had quit smoking for 20 years before landing that role on the X-files and after the first couple of episodes he smoked only herbal cigarettes.

  11. Who’s gonna do all this killin’?

    I’m sure all of these people would say they are incapable due to be “pacifist.”

    Because I guess it’s ok to have people killed as long you have someone else do it for you- kind of like a mob hit.

  12. Cigarettes don’t kill people, *smokers* kill themselves and potentially harm anyone regularly exposed to their second hand smoke. Cigarettes just sit there and do nothing, like guns without a shooter.

      • “second hand smoke”

        That’s one of the Antismokerists’ biggest boogeymen – “second-hand smoke” that has volition; moves itself upwind, opens windows and doors, and attacks babies.

        I think those people actually believe that crap!

        For anyone interested in a little perspective, visit

        • There are however, certain dumb-asses who would smoke in their vehicles with children inside and windows cracked.

          One of my first jobs was riding around on service calls with one of these people.

          • I remember going on road trips in the station wagon with Mom and Dad up front, and me and my two bros and sis lounging around in the back with all the seats down, and when Dad or Mom lit a cigarette, I really enjoyed the aroma. Another aroma I miss is burning leaves in the fall, but you know, combustion smoke is going to kill all the life in the universe, so must be stamped out at all costs!

            You antismokerists have pretty much the same mental dysfuction as the antigun nuts.

        • It’s believable and transferable. For example:

          “second-hand smoke” guns that have volition; moves itself upwind break themselves out of their safes and jump out of holsters, opens windows and doors, and attacks babies, and bus loads of nuns, and power wheel-riding children, etc, etc


        • Mental Dysfunction? Damn how fast we devolve on TTAG… Being as that I am a smoker (only e-cig now) that REALLY confuses me haha

          Oh the interwebs…

        • @Rich. Good grief you find that choking awful stench enjoyable? Cigars, maybe. Pipes, maybe. But cigs are just pure nastiness.

          I guess it takes all kinds.

        • Having read the entirety of the link posted by Rich it is uncanny how the anti-tobacco movement parallels the anti-gun moovement. The techniques are identical. Guns (tobacco) are objectively bad. Let’s gin up some studies to prove this. No legitimate studies prove this? But it must be true, so we will just tell everyone it is and make up our own statistics. If we say it often enough they will believe us.

  13. “Call it what you want. You’re down there, we’re up here. You walked into the wrong goddamn room!”
    -Francis X Hummel, The Rock

    • One of my favorite lines from that movie. 🙂 Unfortunately all too real when they do come for the guns they want to ban.

  14. I encourage all of you to go to those Facebook posts and report them as offensive. I said it is offensive to cancer victims and would encourage children to smoke. Keep doing to them what they want to do to us.

  15. Useful idiots are calling for death and destruction to be visited on those who oppose the elimination of our civil rights, this signifies both frustration and progress. Millions of dollars have been spent to broadcast anti-gun propaganda with the goal of generating this exact response. Unreasoning, emotional rants, by those who believe they occupy the moral high ground, are supposed to somehow translate into widespread public demand for more firearms restrictions. Their failure on the federal level and in most states serves to intensify their extremism. The combination of moral superiority and impotency must be very painful and is producing this hysterical shrieking.

  16. Good for those antigun wingnuts. At least they had the b@lls to state in writing what Obama, Feinstein, Emanuel and the rest of the Democrats are whispering to each other but won’t say out loud.

  17. Yep…the unarmed rabble always threatening gun owners. Bunch of p###ies. Bring it on girls.

  18. Why aren’t these people being locked up for making death threats? What’s up with that? I demand Eric holder investigate these threats against us!

  19. Regarding the picture, isn’t the logic technically correct though? Cigarettes themselves don’t kill, it’s what they are being filled with that can eventually cause cancer from prolonged use. If I remember correctly, herbal cigarettes are smoked just like your typical cig, the only difference is that they are filled with herbs and don’t produce the amounts of carcinogens a normal cig would. For that, they are typically used on movies/tv shows for the actor that don’t smoke or when multiple shots are required and the actor doesn’t want to smoke more than once. Therefore, the cigarette does in fact not kill.

    • But the plain fact remains – the official dogma, “Smoking causes cancer,” is completely false. Those who will get cancer get cancer, and those who won’t won’t, and smoking/not smoking has absolutely nothing to do with it.

      If smoking caused cancer, then how do nonsmokers get cancer, and how do most smokers not get cancer? But antismokerism is based on essentially the same form of brainlock as hoplophobia.

      • Save your breath, Rich. Anti-smoking is more deeply engrained in our society than any anti-rights movement EVER was (yes, slavery included.) I often make relationship comparisons between smokers and gun owners to my friends and people on BOTH sides of the gun debate look at me like have a d1ck growing out of my forehead, without fail.

      • Yeah, my dad is a smoker though he only does it once in a while. I don’t smoke and don’t like being around smoke but that’s only because it really irritates my throat and it doesn’t really help with my asthma. But I don’t tell my friends to stop, i just tell them to move downwind so I don’t get a face full. I knew a couple of vets who served in WWII, and they were all pretty heavy smokers. They died of natural causes. Same goes with my extended family in China, all the men are very heavy smokers, yet none have gotten cancer.

  20. The greatest danger in destroying the right to bear arms is that other constitutional rights will be abolished or severely infringed shortly afterward. The same elected officials who want to take your gun away also want to define who a journalist is or proposing legislation to curb what they define as “hate speech”. These same senators and congressmen have no problem with the NSA violating Americans Fourth Amendment rights.

    • Did you stand next to smokers and protest outrageous taxes and (in some places) the criminalization of tobacco use?

      Can’t pick and choose, defend freedom or don’t.

        • I’ve never seen someone so strong in their opinion of smoking; While I disagree with most of what you’re saying, I can’t really say you’re wrong seeing as all I have are preconceived notions that I’ve been taught…I’ll probably still stand by them for the time being seeing as I don’t feel like doing the research at the moment, doesn’t mean I’m not open to change though.
          I’ll never smoke because buying cigarettes is a waste of my money; they’re so frickin’ expensive in Washington state.
          Also, I don’t feel like being dependent on another drug; Caffeine already rules my morning, I don’t need the rest of my day to be controlled by nicotine.

          Oh and I’m just curious…
          Explain me one thing:
          How putting all of that tar into your lungs is good for them.
          It seems that just like with alcohol and livers, tar destroys lungs:

          Emphysema anyone?

          AND to round it all out:

          Taken from a different site:
          “Smoke from cigarettes contains tar, which sticks to the cilia in our lungs. The cilia usually act like little brooms to sweep out harmful dirt, but when you smoke cigarettes, the cilia can’t work because they’re covered in sticky tar”
          A source to back it up: Note you can’t access it if your not a UW student. It may be accessible through other means though.

          I will hold off on my convictions regarding cancer and smoking, but smoking still ain’t the best for your health.

          • It’s metaphysics. Smoke wards off evil spirits. That’s why Hindu and Buddhist temples always have incense burning, and that’s why the antismokerists are so venomous about it, and can smell it from across town and stuff. And that’s why they show grisly pictures to try to shame me or guilt me into behaving the way they want me to.

            I love the smell of second-hand cigarette smoke in the morning – smells like FREEDOM!

        • That’s all fine and dandy sir.
          I have no problem with you saying what you do.
          You did, however, avoid the question.
          I don’t want this to devolve into a politics style avoiding contest so lets get to the point.

          Is the act of putting tar in your lungs harmful to them or not?

          I obviously already think it is harmful.
          The cilia, which are a crucial part of breathing an activity which we need to live, are damaged by tar. Tar sits on them, smothering them.

          Saying that that doesn’t happen when you put tar into your lungs is like saying you don’t bleed when you cut yourself down to the bone.

          And yes, the picture I linked was an extreme case, but it is an example of what CAN happen if you take something to the extreme. However, it was not meant to shame or guilt you into believing a certain stance. It was intended to demonstrate the effects of long term exposure of tar on the respiratory system; it was presented as evidence of the stance that tar is harmful to lungs and you can choose to either accept it or deny it.

          (Saying my intentions were to shame rather than to convince is only destructive to this conversation).

          Anyways, enough of my jibber jabber; I want your answer on the question.
          Tar, is it harmful when inhaled into the lungs? (Long term of course; the symptoms you saw in the earlier picture was from decades of smoking; a cumulative effect).

          • “Is the act of putting tar in your lungs harmful to them or not? ”

            What’s it to you?
            Why are you so obsessed with the condition of my lungs?
            Have you ever heard the expression “Mind your own Business?”

            Am I being detained? Look at this baby!

        • To sketch:
          I think we all know that smoking is harmful (and I have no problem with limiting it to adult use just like alcohol or whatever) but the picture’s analogy is false. Firing a gun does not mean you will harm yourself or others. Inhaling cigarette fumes might harm yourself, but that is a personal choice and I see no reason to make that decision for other people. Secondhand smoke is an issue but not serious enough to justify restrictions.

          Either way, a cigarette won’t light itself and give random people cancer.

        • To Scubula,
          I pretty much share your viewpoint on what people can and cannot do; none of my business.
          AND, I’m not debating any of what you said.
          I’m not an expert on cancer and ALL of my knowledge on the topic of cancer and cigarettes is mostly from the news. I’m not and do not plan on debating the topic of whether or not cigarettes increase your chances of getting cancer.
          Also I didn’t really say whether or not second hand smoke can hurt others; Not interested in that at all at the moment.

          Also, not really sure what you’re saying about the picture analogy being false.
          It wasn’t meant to be an analogy, it was presented as evidence:
          It shows what CAN happen IF a person smokes heavily for a long period of time.
          The picture shows a result.

          What I am doing with the picture is demonstrating something.
          If I wanted to demonstrate that a bullet fired at high velocities will smash a watermelon to pieces I would show you this video:

          There is no debate on the issue that a bullet will explode a Mellon when fired at high velocities.
          It is simply a fact, the video is evidence.

          The same can be said for tar and lungs. When tar is inhaled at regular intervals for decades, the result is the picture that I linked; there isn’t any room for debate for that is a result.

          So what I want is Rick’s viewpoint on tar and its effects on the human lung.
          I understand basic human biology I presume Rick does as well so I hope we reach the same conclusion.
          Although I’m still interested in what he has to say if he doesn’t.

          All this aside, I wanted to add an extra comment to denote some things: I may sound aggressive and a bit ticked in my writing; When this post gets read by me it sounds to me like I have a tone problem and that I’m pissed off. Not my intentions at all; I just want to have a civil discussion and I’d like to keep it that way. My apologies for any…irksome writing. It is late and I really should head to bed.

          Happy typing.

        • Sigh…
          I’m not trying to interrogate you Rick.. 😛
          Just curious what your stance on the question is in general.

          I’m asking about tar and lungs because if you say yes tar is harmful, then you must also admit that smoking is somewhat harmful.
          I don’t care if you smoke, I don’t even care what the condition of your lungs are in. What you do is none of my business.

          I’m simply curious what your answer to that question is, that’s all.

          And I can guess what you might say to that…”Why the fascination over proving that cigarettes are harmful? Got a bee in yer bonnet?”
          Well you see, I gotta argue over something I believe in right? I can’t just be a wishy washy flip flopper.
          I’ve drawn a line and I’m going to stand on that line! 😛

          I noticed that you still haven’t answered the question, spoken just like a politiction.
          Your question avoidance skills are…Over 9000.
          I jest. 😉

        • And no, you are not being detained.
          You are free to leave whenever you like. 😛

          Man, why did I spend so much time arguing on the internet?
          Rick, what are we doing? We should be out enjoying our lives and instead we’re sitting here nitpicking over cigarettes.

        • Ad hominems Rick? Calling me a bully?
          Rick….You’re hurting my feelings… 🙁

          C’mon, level with me; I’m not trying to be intrusive or anything, I just want a simple answer.
          Is it really that hard?

          You could have made it really simple and just said yes or no, but you persist in avoiding the question.
          I apologize for labeling you a politician in training, it wasn’t really kind of me but you are avoiding the question.

          I really am sorry if any of this is seen as “mean” or “bullying” to you, it’s not my intention.
          Curiosity is my motivation and when I’m curious I want answers! 😛
          So, you going to level with me or not?

          • “So, you going to level with me or not?”

            I’ve only seen one question, and I answered it. I’m sorry that you don’t like my answer, but tough toenails.

            Now it’s your turn to answer my question: Why are you so obsessed with the condition of my lungs, and what makes you think it’s any of your damn business? (Just FYI, you’re sounding increasingly Wattsian, and it’s getting tiresome.)

        • You know what Rich? Sorry.
          I feel like we’ve gotten off on the wrong foot… 🙁
          I’ll say it again, I don’t care about your lungs or your life; what you do is YOUR business and your business only.

          If it feels like I’m dogging you then again, sorry; that wasn’t my intention at all. Text tends to be a poor form of communication, and sometimes my efforts at expressing what I mean can…Get lost in bad syntax or phrasing.

          The reason why I keep bugging you about the tar stuff is because of my curiosity; I have never encountered a person like you who is in favor of smoking.
          You are a firm believer that smoking is harmless no? Please correct me if I’m wrong.
          Here’s the thing: For all my life I’ve been surrounded by people who all agree that, “smoking is bad.”
          I’ve never had someone come at the issue from your viewpoint; So I’m curious.
          I’m curious what has led you to believe that way and I’m interested to here what you have to say on the topic.

          There is a thing called positive confirmation bias and I believe that it has influenced my opinion on smoking; everyone around me has never disagreed on the issue. I feel like I’m biased against smoking in a BIG way.
          I’m hoping you can change that as you seem to be quite firm in your beliefs.

          So when you come along with your views, I want to engage in conversation so as to either change my own mind on the issue, or switch sides, (that’s what one does when faced with new information regarding a debate such as the one over smoking).

          When I ask about tar and lungs*, I am not trying to shame you, guilt you, bully you, pester you or bother you, I’m genuinely interested in what you have to say.

          *In general: Again, not your lungs. My question, “does tar negatively impact lungs when inhaled” is strictly a general question. What happens to X when Y is used. The question isn’t meant to do anything except to elicit an answer. Why do I keep asking? See above, I’m curious. 😀

          I want you to express your views on the subject because I’m curious, interested and I want to expand my views.
          I hope this clears up my intentions and how I feel about our conversation up till now; I’ve always tried to be respectful about the whole issue even if that may not be how you read it.

          “Why can’t be friends, why can’t we be friends?”
          Why not huh?

          Maybe we should email or something.

        • I’ve just read this whole thing, what a hoot.

          Ya sketch youve been a bit unclear in some of yer posts but not that much.
          Man rich just answer the damn question the man is courious ha ha. I’m a bit curious to.
          ANd that song the memories, lets all be friends okay? 😀
          Don’t ask me about smoking though, to much “herb”… xD

        • Man rich your a king of dodging
          I’m not even that good at running around a question when im high…

          again just answer the damn question
          I think I understand what sketch wants even though he’s acting alll sorry
          “does tar negatively impact lungs when inhaled”
          He just wants an answer to that question.
          Wait I’ll answer it “Yes it does” There sketch, you have an answer, go back to bed
          He’s kinda being repetitive with that though, he does seem a bit obssesed with the question

        • Rich are u serious lol.
          He already answered those questions you asked.
          He said that he doesnt care about the condition of your lungs and that he doesn’t care what you do .
          “I’ll say it again, I don’t care about your lungs or your life; what you do is YOUR business and your business only.”

          He’s obviously not judgeing u or telling you what to do, he doesn’t give a fuck what you do.
          he’s not trying to jugde you or tell you how to live your life and he doesn’t care about yer lungs.
          He just wants an answer to the whole tar and lungs question
          Its like you don’t know how to read basic english, I know you do know how to do that so there must be some other reason.

          Or maybe you are a politician lol.
          man this is funny.
          You act all outraged and keep bringing up the condition of your lungs when he’s stated he doesn’t care about your lungs.
          the only reason you keep doing that is because you know your wrong right?
          its funny to watch this because sketch is sitting there being pretty respectful and logical and factual and he’s trying to have a civil conversation and rich sits there going “Stop asking about my lungs its none of your damn buisness!”

    • Nice post Tom. Hit the nail on the head with that one. Folks this is not just about the 2A, this is about all of our rights against the statists. Yes, I actually am for the right of people to smoke and take drugs. Yes, I have campaigned for Libertarian candidates. Yes, I am for people to not be just a pawn and tool of the state.

  21. Well, this is perhaps the dumbest argument I’ve ever seen comparing firearms to cigarettes. Firearms ownership is only dangerous depending on whether the owner has a history of violence or a history of self harm. Most people have neither. Most people can own a whole safe full of firearms and its danger level depends on the precautions the owner takes not to let firearms fall into high risk hands. Usually this involves the owner keeping a sidearm on their person (concealed) AT ALL TIMES and keeping the rest of there firearms locked in a safe where it is A LOT harder for high risk individuals to posses them. Cigarettes are dangerous regardless of who you are. If I smoke two packs a day, it will do to me what ever its going to do to me and there is nothing I can do about it. The same has never been true with firearms. Travis Pike doesn’t want to think about these differences because his emotions do not allow him to do so.

  22. Dropped some Likes were appropriate and also a few snide remarks. Let’s see how long they stand or how long it takes before I get banned.

  23. Just print a duplicate of the poster and say…. “Liberal logic says cigarettes cause cancer but ignores the one who has the cigarette in his hands as having anything to do with it.”

  24. If you live in a blue-state, you may be part of the problem. If you have a (D) after your name, the problem is part-of-you.

    People with guns kill people, so do people with swords and machetes (they sometimes put a bag over your head and have a banner in the background, they like to use a sawing-action for effect).

    Even worse though are the s.o.b.’s that ask you to disarm yourselves for people like them, the “bend-over-and-take-it” crowd. Should the country ever be overrun, tell those people to “keep it down” while you are concentrating on protecting you and yours, and God Bless you.

  25. Please post the links to their Facebook pages, so we don’t confuse them with people who have the same name.

  26. Compound bows and crossbows are almost as deadly as your average gun. Where are the ban archery people at? Think about it this way, arrows are near silent and leave no trail as to their starting point. It will just end up like the UK with their “ban knives” campaign. Next they will want to ban “pointy” sticks. Just as Albert Einstein said, “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”

  27. I applaud the owners of this website for featuring some of the ideas expressed by the gun grabbers. Some gun owners need a wake up call about what they are up against.

    I certainly hopes this becomes a regular feature.

  28. Cigarette smoking increases risk of cancer. Let’s ban lighters.

    Close to 99% of the time a smoker lights up, it’s with a lighter. If we reduce the accessibility to lighters most of those smokers would never have lit up. If one person doesn’t get cancer because of this, it will be worth it.

    You say lighters are useful for other things? Use a match. No one needs a lighter to light a cigarette/campfire/tiki torch.

    • Let’s ban matches also! They can be used to light a cigarette, and cigarette’s cause cancer.

      We also need licenses for people to smoke, registration and background checks on these people. Tax them. A lot. Tax lighters and matches too. Traceability. We need records on who owns cigarettes!


  29. Lighten up everyone, if you haven’t known that guns cause people since the 60’s you’ve been living under a rock.

Comments are closed.