A Peek Inside the Deranged Mind of a Liberal: The Nine Worst Arguments Against Gun Control

There is seemingly no end to the extent to which anti-gun people and groups will lie about guns and gun owners. Post links to articles by these masters of prevarication here.

Moderator: carlson1

User avatar

Topic author
Vol Texan
Senior Member
Posts: 1638
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:18 am
Location: Houston

A Peek Inside the Deranged Mind of a Liberal: The Nine Worst Arguments Against Gun Control

Postby Vol Texan » Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:32 pm

In no way do I advocate even one word on this article, but I stumbled across it, and thought it was good to share what sort of mania we're dealing with in the gun-grabber side of the aisle.

There is some NSFW language in here, but it's a liberal anti-2A article, so you probably expected it anyway.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/10/the-8-worst-arguments-against-gun-control.html

America has fallen back into our ritualistic tribes this week. In the wake of yet another massacre committed by a white man who legally purchased weapons of war, the gun control debate has taken center stage again. Every time we experience one of these mass shootings, we implore our government to change, but nothing ever does. Roughly 90% of Americans are in favor of universal background checks, yet we can’t even accomplish that. The main reason is that the 10% opposed is far more committed to their cause than the 90% (and has the NRA organizing them), and the concern trolling coming from those on and around the fence to any gun regulation tends to muddy the waters (note: I’m not criticizing those opposing some gun regulations, just people who argue in favor of the bloody status quo).

(snip)

That said, here are nine flawed (at best) arguments that you will hear from some earnest but misinformed gun enthusiasts, and from all of those like Bill O’Reilly who are OK with mass murder so long as they get to go pew! pew! bang! bang! with no supervision.



The author then continues on with his list. I'll not post the profanity-laden details behind each of his points; instead, I'll leave you just the headers (followed by my interpretation of his argument why he thinks each one is flawed). Feel free to read his version on the link above.

  • The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
    He equated all self-defense situations to the Vegas shooting, and explained how impossible it would have been for thousands of armed civilians to have returned fire safely into one broken window of a skyscraper from hundreds of yards away. Yeah, I guess that's the same thing as a single mom walking to her car after a night class at the local community college using a gun to defend herself in a parking lot...well, maybe not.
  • Guns won’t solve the issue of mentally ill people going on rampages.
    He acknowledges that this is true, but then blames the right on the failure to act on mental health issues, so...let's attack the guns instead!!!
  • Guns are the most effective means of self-defense.
    He concedes this point, but only for people who live in rural America. Those that live in cities should be required to wait on the police to arrive.
  • But Chicago...
    Don't talk about Chicago, you racist, old, white man. Besides, after Heller, everyone in Chicago can legally carry a gun everywhere, all the time, anyway ... so that argument is no longer valid!
  • Gun laws won’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
    Again, he almost concedes this one. He realizes that he has nothing that he can say to argue this, so instead he says, "This one is so unfathomably stupid that I’m going blind with rage even thinking about a rebuttal, so we’re just going to move on to the next one before I punch a hole through my computer screen."
    Somebody needs to read http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm posted by NotRPB a couple days ago.
  • Unfettered access to guns is every citizens’ right.
    OK, now it's time to mis-read the 2nd Amendment. He says (among other things), "...the problem here is that the comma in front of militia is weird, and makes it much more difficult to deduce the practical meaning of “militia.” Regardless of what that word technically means, the founding fathers clearly wanted some sort of “well regulated” version, and saying that the second amendment guarantees zero restrictions on guns is naïve at best." I think it's time for him to understand what they meant by 'regulated' is the the same thing as he wants it to mean.
  • A right is a right, it doesn’t have to be justified.
    Here he says that we think its our right not only to own guns, but to shoot them indiscriminately at crowds - and because we feel we have that right, he should be able to restrict it.
  • Shooters target gun free zones.
    Using questionable statistics provided by Bloomberg's Organization, he clearly shows that is not true. Of course those stats broaden mass shootings to include a much broader cross-section of incidents (e.g. drug deals gone bad, domestic violence shootings).
  • Guns are tools that can kill, just like knives, and we’re not banning knives are we?
    I truly cannot follow his twisted logic on this one, so I'll not waste my time explaining it.
Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
When those fail, aim for center mass.

Armored Cav. | NRA Certified Pistol Instructor | www.Texas3006.com Moderator

Return to “Anti-gun propaganda and other lies!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests