search
top

Antis Having it Both Ways

We’re told by our opponents that the candle light vigils that occurred on the anniversary of the mass shooting in Tucson that claimed the lives of a number of people, and severely injured Congresswoman Giffords, were merely an expression of honoring victims, and is thus beyond reproach. But from a Minnesota Public Radio article, we can see even the people who supposedly organized against “gun violence” say it was a political stunt:

The nationwide “Too Many Victims” vigils demanded that public officials commit to stopping these needless deaths. We must start with the source of the guns.

So here we have two organizers fully admitting the goal of these vigils was political, while at the same time groups like CSGV and Brady shield themselves behind a veil of victimhood while they conspire to destroy our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I’m calling shenanigans on that. The goal of this vigil was, all along, political in nature, as was painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain. That essentially means the event is not above criticism, no matter what kind of nonsense our opponents want to try to convince people.

In a sense, they really are victims. Politically, they are beaten, and by people they’ve always considered unenlightened and less civilized than are they. We are increasingly finding ourselves more mainstream, while they are more marginalized. They know this as well as anyone, which is why they having nothing left to do but lash out in anger. We have them on the ropes folks, and now is not the time to let up.

6 Responses to “Antis Having it Both Ways”

  1. Ben. M. says:

    These gun banners are all about politics, they prbably count recount a single ” victims” name should they be asked. The dead are tools to construct a facade, that lives hang in the balance. In reality the errosion of our rights in order to create an unarmed and maliable society is the end game.

    • Sebastian says:

      To be fair to them, a good number of anti-gun activists got into the issue because they lost someone close to them to a criminal or whakjob with a gun. The problem is, they have taken that grief and turned it outward into a movement that aims to restrict my freedom. When they are criticized, they fall back on their victimhood and demean the people criticizing them as extremist bullies. I consider such behavior pathetic and lamentable. It is not adult behavior, or the behavior of someone who is intellectually serious.

      To be fair, not all of them exhibit this particular disease. Colin Goddard, for instance, is somewhat unusual in that he’s a direct victim of a whakjob with a gun, and he has always seemed a reasonable fellow. dHe doesn’t just declare his victim status and lash out like cornered, angry cat. No doubt he uses his victimhood politically, but that’s not necessary lamentable as long as you’re willing to take the heat and accept that your victimhood is not beyond criticism when you’re using it in a political manner.

  2. Pat says:

    Its always so convenient how they leave out the facts in their statements — like how “silencers” are currently LEGAL under the NFA…all we’re trying to do is bring MN in line with the NFA and allow purchase of supressors in full accordance with NFA.
    The “Stand Your Ground” legislation doesn’t make murder legal. The “Reasonable Person” standard is still in effect – this simply removes the duty to retreat for anyone occupying a space they are legally entitled to be. The antis would have the public believe that you can shoot a non-threatening trespasser…or a college student drunkenly sleeping on your couch….WRONG.
    Joan Heather & Co get me worked up — good thing we have a well-organized group here in MN. Hopefully we should be getting a little more air time this session!

  3. Weer'd Beard says:

    Also why they don’t care about victims of violent crimes that don’t include guns…or people who were attacked and defended themselves.

    They’re all victims…but some are more useful.

    Yeah we’re heartless…

  4. TS says:

    Sebastian: “When they are criticized, they fall back on their victimhood and demean the people criticizing them as extremist bullies.”

    I get a kick out of their use of the word “bully.” I picture a third grader whining that the sixth grader wouldn’t let him take his lunch money. Rest assured, if they just leave us alone, we won’t be bothering them.

    Pat: “The antis would have the public believe that you can shoot a non-threatening trespasser…or a college student drunkenly sleeping on your couch….”

    And when it happens, they blame us. They are the ones saying it is a “license to kill”, or that you can “shoot first”, and when someone does it they take no responsibility for spreading that lie. Though truthfully, I don’t think anyone is considering what the law is in these situations- the law just sorts out the punishment afterwards.

  5. Braden Lynch says:

    They must be so frustrated since they are having their clocks cleaned by “beer guzzling hillbillies” and mentally defective people with problems regarding the size of our male equipment as their compatriots have repeatedly claimed. They paint a silly caricature of gun owners as ignorant and ready to snap in an instant and shoot the waiter for being slow or executing someone over a parking space. We’re also paranoid for taking precautions since we all know that bad things never happen to good people in good places.

    So, their insults deserve a valid accusation in response…if you are a gun control advocate then you are EVIL because you seek to disarm the innocent and enable criminals and despots.

top