Tonsillitis Leads to Newly Minted Gun Nut

Huh? How exactly does that work?  How does a sore throat have anything to do w/ firearms? 

Well it doesn't.  That's the point. 

Some parents (non-gun owners) take their teenager in for a checkup, etc.  Doctors/staff start grilling the kid on his grades, family life and..... whether the family owns guns. 

Mom's response?

Mary Rita Insley, newly sensitized to gun issues, has since applied for a Firearm Owner's Identification Card. But here's what bothers her.
"If I purchase a gun, am I then supposed to train my children to lie for fear of the government knowing I have guns?" she asked.

 Welcome to the gun control debate Ms. Insley.  Welcome to anti-gun fanatics considering you a danger to yourself and your family w/o any evidence whatsoever. 

H/T to the ISRA Thursday Bulletin.

Gun N!gg3rs

A comment on FB.

 I'm sure you couldn't care less as long as the NRA remains ever powerful in this country. It may have began decent but now it is a loathesome organization. The dedicated, radical members likely don't care if their own kids are victims as long as they have their weapons capable of killing hundreds in under 5 minutes.

 How can you reason or compromise w/ someone that is this unreasonable?  Someone who has this much hate and bigotry in them towards firearm owners and the NRA (or anything they associate w/ the NRA) ?

I mean really. This is a person who honestly believes that hundreds of thousands of their fellow Americans are sitting on their couches, stroking their guns, while letting their little kids play w/ loaded handguns.

  This is the type of person who was convinced that 'Negroes lust after white women' and other silly stereotypes in order to justify their own personal ignorance, hatred and biases. 

Two words.  You can't.  Especially when they're PROUD of it:

Honest and open h.a.t.e.r of guns and loathing for the NRA. organization and any other organization that supports and puts these killing machines out for any brain.dead individual to get his/her hands on. If that makes me a bigot, I am proudly that. Now go t.r.o.l.l someone else.

To them, we're nothing but a bunch of 'Gun N!gg3rs'. 



There was no reasoning w/ that type and there's no reasoning w/ most anti-gun activists.

 

My Organization is Better Than Your Organization

Sebastian and Lyle have opened up the proverbial can of worms over the history of the NRA and some manufacturers allegedly supporting federal gun laws in the past.

Well we know that there have been quite a few screw-ups over the years. Smith & Wesson tried to get a monopoly by signing on to Clinton era gun control. The NRA initially tried to derail Heller over the fact that the court as it stood when it all got started wasn't a definitive winner. Etc.

Yeah, most of them have screwed up at one point or another. So what do we do? Do we Zumbo every group/company that we disagree w/? Do we keep sending money/buying product if we disagree w/ them?

I personally spread the wealth around as much as possible. I'm a life member of both the NRA and SAF and an annual or more of the Illinois State Rifle Assoc. and Champaign Cnty. Rifle Assoc. I've had my issues w/ all of them and I let them know it when I do. If they don't listen, I put more of my support, both money and activity, to the others but it would take a lot for me to cut them out entirely. There are some groups I admit I won't even waste blog space on mentioning.

As for firearm manufacturers, I buy what I like. So far that hasn't come into conflict w/ politics or activism but one who openly works against my interests I will not buy from again w/o some rough music.

Whatever you choose to do, let it be useful. Don't just whine and kvetch about what a bad job "X" is doing. Go join/support another group and/or company and tell the ones you disagree w/ WHY, not just "You suck" or similar such comments that make you look like a fool. Then go out and keep up the activism. If you sit on your rear and let the groups do all the work, then don't complain about what you get.

Dennis Henigan Lies and Slanders

In a debate Acting Brady Campaign President Dennis "I forgot the people" Henigan shows he selectively pays attention to federal law as well as the COTUS and claims the NRA wants to arm drug cartels.

This, according to the CSGV and PegHeads, is 'handing his hat' to NRA's Chris Cox.

They really are scraping the bottom of the barrel for 'victories.

The Message v The Messenger

In the discussion w/ the gun control advocate over CSGV's Twitter ban, he made the statement that he differentiates between the message and the messenger. That's a good position to hold but the question it raises is what if the messenger regularly lies and distorts? What does that say about the 'message'?

For example. The CSGV tweeted this:

Gun enthusiasts using loophole to acquire full-auto machines guns & silencers w/o background checks. #p2 #politics... http://fb.me/BTWVAA3p

Problem is, that's a flat out lie. Even in the article they link to, it says this:

Tough scrutiny comes along with this classification. Unlike with other guns, for each Title II purchase, a person must submit photos and fingerprints to the federal authorities for a background check.

Another version of the story goes deeper but, as Uncle points out, is poorly written and seems to be confusing background checks and LEO approval. Speaking to a representative of the 'Gun Trust Lawyers", I was told that the purpose of this is to remove the CLEO component but that the BATFE has the authority to conduct background checks on Trusts and Corporations but generally don't. CNN has apparently been contacting them for some time trying to get some sort of 'hit piece' story out of it.

Then there's the classic example of Josh Sugarmann of the VPC and his intention to deliberately confuse the public on 'Assault Weapons':

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons "anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun" can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

We've seen the dishonesty over and over when it comes to claims from gun control groups so when the messenger is dishonest, how can you trust the message? Shouldn't you at least look deeper into it?

Civil Discourse

After discussing the matter civilly and showing the facts to a gun control advocate who thought Twitter's response to CSGV's 'outing' campaign was severe (mostly due to them blatantly lying about it), here was his response:

I withdrew post to Support -- I didn't know enough to make a complaint, in retrospect.

You catch more flies w/ honey than vinegar. But the truth wins out in the long run no matter what.

We'll see if anything comes of it.

"Agree to Disagree"? No, I Don't Think So.

I hear that phrase regularly from 'gun control' advocates when they're getting pushed to provide evidence or support for their claims. Here's one example of a Canadian PuSH'er after being unable to defend her belief that gun control saved her country from doom.

To all of you who have replied to me...and there are many of you........We are going to have to agree to respectfully disagree on this one. I don't consider I have lost a freedom because we have strict gun control laws in Canada. I feel fortunate to live in a country where people don't generally feel the need to carry a hand gun to protect themselves.

We have less murders, accidental deaths and suicide on a per capita basis from guns than the United states and I am very happy for that. It doesn't matter why....

That's right, 'It doesn't matter why'. Just ban guns.

And this mentality goes all the way to the top of their lobby. SIH, Joe Huffman and others have been taking a Bradybot to task.

And when she can no longer defend herself, just like the sycophant 'Kelli' on the old Brady Blog, she cries 'harassment' and that we must, you guessed it, 'agree to disagree' because discussion is 'futile'.

Now THAT I will agree with. Trying to 'discuss' anything w/ staunch gun control advocates is 'futile' because it will, without fail, end up w/ them claiming we should 'agree to disagree'. In varying levels of politeness.

No. I don't think so.

Why? Because in the big picture, they're trying to restrict ME, I'M not trying to restrict THEM. They may pull some anecdotes out of their @sses to show why they're afraid of all these gun owners but, when the real numbers are shown, they scurry away w/ 'agree to disagree'.

So again. No, I don't think so. And I will continue to disagree w/ them and actively oppose them every chance I get.

Truncating History

Gun control advocates have a documented history of shortening quotes to take them completely out of their original context, often turning them from a pro-gun claim into an anti-gun one. Usually when they do, I learn a little something new and add a new cite to my library.

Today was no exception. In a discussion on gun control in the 'Wild West', another troll cutnpasted an article from the now near defunct Gun Guys w/ this:

It was the late 1870s, the height of the mythic Wild West, and W.N. Morphy, editor of the Ford County Globe, pondered the presence of guns on Dodge City streets.

“An honest man attending to his own business doesn’t require the constant companionship of a six-shooter to make him feel easy and safe,” he opined on March 5, 1878, referencing a local ban on concealed guns. Indeed, “there is something rotten with a man’s conscience,” he continued, if he must walk the streets with a weapon.

Pretty straightforward, right? This guy opposed the carrying of firearms. But reader and commenter Odin's Eye located the complete statement:

"Some of the "boys"(1) in direct violation of City ordinances, carry firearms on our streets, without being called to account for the same. They do it in such an open manner, that it don't (sic) seem possible that our City officers are ignorant of this fact.

There must be some reason for it. What is it? Is it because they belong to the "gang"(1), or because they intend to harm none but anti-gang men? An honest man attending to his own business, doesn't require the constant companionship of a six-shooter, to make him feel easy and safe. We think there is something rotten with a man's conscience when he parades the streets with an exposed six-shooter, knowing he is violating the law with impunity, simply because he is a friend of the mashal or policeman." -- Ford County Globe, 5 March 1878, as related in "Why the West Was Wild: A Contemporary Look at the Antics of Some Highly Publicized Kansas Cowtown Personalities ", Nyle H. Miller, 2003, p 297

Well now that changes the whole meaning, doesn't it? He's not opposing the carrying of firearms necessarily but more the Good Old Boy system in place in most corrupt towns and cities during the era of the likes of Boss Tweed.

Why do they feel the need to do this? Because as has been shown over and over, history opposes gun control. They know this so have to try and re-invent it in their own image. Thankfully, in today's electronic age, it's harder for them to spread their bullcrap message w/o being called on it.

"I'm a Gun Owner But......"

I've discussed these types of individuals several times before. The most famous case is that of Jim Zumbo. For those of you unfamiliar w/ this bit of firearm history, a few years ago, Jim Zumbo, a prominent hunter and shooter w/ endorsements, TV shows, you name it, called semi-auto sporters like AR-15's "Terrorist Rifles" and felt they should be banned. This got linked to AR15.com and w/i a week, he had been dumped by all of his sponsors and his shows canceled.

Unfortunately he's not alone. Invariably the conversation w/ these types of individuals starts out w/, as the title says, "I'm a gun owner but..." and then goes downhill from there. The most common form that I've encountered is a hunter who doesn't see a 'need' for 'assault weapons' and/or pistols combined w/ a dislike for the 'extremist' NRA. The reasons for their opposition usually contains the traditional Brady-esque talking points like 'bullet hoses', supporting registration, etc. which is all OK because they'll 'never come after my huntin' guns'. This is also the same type of individual that the 'American Hunters and Shooters Assoc.' preyed upon to get what little membership they had.

These are some of the most difficult individuals to debate w/ in that they are firearm owners so they know and understand most of the nomenclature but they're rooted in their own selfishness/bigotry so are difficult to convince. We can't just laugh at them or dismiss them like we can w/ most of the hard-core gun control advocates.

I'll admit that I've had very little luck in this endeavor. What I have had though has come from showing them that 'Yes Virginia, they ARE after your hunting guns' such as the Joyce Funded VPC trying to re-label bolt action rifles as 'Intermediate Sniper Rifles' or the statements by the president of IANSA, Rebecca Peters and which US organizations belong to her group. And still the discussion usually loops back to the 'need' claim and 'they won't ban these' arguments.

So who has had luck w/ this class and how have you done it? Conversely, what nonsense have you encountered?

Debating PuSH'ers*

Your typical 'hardcore' anti-gunner is a 'true believer' in the most literal sense of the phrase. No amount of facts or logic will penetrate that shell as they repeat talking points like 'bullet hoses', "spray fire from the hip", "high powered", "well-regulated" and other sorts of catch phrases.

Some of the sillier things I've been told or have read over the years:

Shooting an animal w/ an 'assault weapon' destroys it. (no comment when real specs on them were presented)

The NRA put out an advertisement supporting AP ammo because "Some animals are armored". (oh a friend told him about it)

You can make a semi-auto into a machine gun by filing down the FIRING pin. (complete ignorance of firearm operation)

So why bother? Unless you're actually debating publicly some public figure what good does it do?

Well it's not always a complete waste of time.

Depending on the forum, odds are good there are 'fence-sitters' there as well. Countering the misinformation and emotional appeals presented can help either keep them neutral or sway them towards positive. One of the best ways to do this is to stay calm and just keep countering them. In my experience they will invariable resort to ad hominems (usually involving the NRA), character attacks or the ever popular comments on genitalia size.

You can also learn from them. Really, you can. I've gotten some really good sources from anti's who cited a study or some historical document but either partially quoted it, took it out of context or just assumed what it was about w/o reading the whole thing, sometimes getting it completely backwards.

Of course sometimes I just have fun w/ them, seeing how often I can get them to contradict themselves. I had one individual recently attacking sources he cited as 'right wing idiots' because he didn't bother reading past the first couple of lines.

Feel free to add your stories of truly ridiculous lines you've been handed or your own suggestions.

*PSH: Pants Sh!tting Hysterics

Fence Sitters

One of the ways I use to discuss firearms w/ people who don't necessarily oppose them but aren't enthusiastic about them is to ask them questions.

One of my favorites is to ask them what they thing an "Assault Weapon" is. I have yet to have someone tell me anything other than the usual variations on "High Powered Machineguns" and everyone has been surprised when I inform them of the reality of them and the deliberate attempts to confuse the public on the issue.

Now I've added one more tailored to Illinois residents. I ask them if they think that the Chicago firearm laws are really intended to stop criminals. Then I tell them about Alderman Mell and his Daley approved personal exemption after he forgot to follow the laws.

So how do you discuss the issue w/ those in the middle?