search
top

We Seem to Have a New Anti-Gun Blog

As can be expected, the proprietor seems to be quite angry, and willing to engage in personal attacks against gun owners instead of making reasonable public policy arguments. In truth, I share the author’s revulsion to bumper sticker sloganeering when it comes to political debates, but to pretend this debate has been only about bumper sticker sloganeering is to erect a straw man. Anyone remotely familiar with this topic, other than superficially, knows that the fight for the Second Amendment has had a great deal of depth to it. Sure, there is bumper sticker sloganeering that happens, but to focus solely on that is to ignore the breadth of the debate and scholarship on this issue is to miss the boat. While I’m happy to see our opponents busy erecting and tearing down straw men, it’s done little to advance their cause.

So I encourage Mr. (Ms.?) Weapons4Sale to hang about, and engage in some healthy debate. At best we will probably have to agree to disagree, but at least we would have come away with an understanding, a real understanding, of the other side’s positions and arguments. A well-educated activist, being necessary for effectiveness on any issue, should know their opponents arguments and positions well enough to be able to argue their positions as well or better than they can. To fail in that task is to fail to understand the importance of knowing the mind of your opponent. When I’ve successfully made those kinds of predictions, it’s because I’m constantly thinking what I would do if I were them, and if you know your opponent well, you can put yourself into their shoes. The gun control movement’s unwillingness to engage in this kind activism, and instead choosing to continually erect and tear down straw men, and engage in ad-homenim attacks against gun owners, guns and gun rights, has hurt it deeply. For this we should all be thankful.

51 Responses to “We Seem to Have a New Anti-Gun Blog”

  1. Unfortunately, I doubt you’ll get to meet and engage in a healthy debate – liberals today don’t think; they use emotion and personal attacks.

    • Sebastian says:

      I don’t expect to. But I don’t want to be the one to begin the incivility.

      • Patrick H says:

        I think being civil will actually server to incite them more, where as the opposite will just be another example of how nutty we are.

        It also has a side benefit of showing to those on the fence who is more logical.

    • Ken says:

      There is nothing liberal about wanting to disarm people because you hate them. This is a wannabe tyrant, not a liberal.

    • Michael says:

      As a gun toting liberal I feel obligated to point out the hypocrisy of your statement. Instead of speaking to the issue, your post does nothing more than attempt to disarm the character value of the concept of a liberal. I love the gun vs anti-gun debate. It’s something that should always be researched and discussed.

      A couple of years ago I wrote an essay called My Fathers Gun to explore the evolution in my own behavior where guns are concerned. When I was done with it, I realized that its not a conservative / liberal issue at all. It is a personal preference issue that has nothing to do with my core political beliefs.

      That said, I’ll go ahead and get on the mudslinging bandwagon and point out that there is extensive research that shows the smarter a person is, the more likely they are to be liberal. While intelligent conservatives do exist, they tend to be the outliers.

      So maybe we do think…a little.

      • Cargosquid says:

        That’s the problem. Liberals THINK they know better.

      • ecurb says:

        Thank you. I’m getting increasingly annoyed about this. People in the movement who know what they’re talking about know we need to reach out to everyone who is (or has the potential to be) on our side.
        Meanwhile the usual suspects continue the “hurr, stupid libtards wanna turk ur gunz!” talk without realizing how harmful it is to our long term survival.

      • J says:

        Michael, I certainly know some very intelligent liberals. I should point out that they are not actually Democrats but, liberals all the same. That said, liberals don’t seem too interested in putting their brightest to work in their anti-gun causes. Who’s the liberal (and intellectual) counterpart to Clayton Cramer, Mike Vanderboegh or David Codrea?

  2. Ken says:

    I disagree about bumper stickers. When you have a bumper sticker with a cliche NRA slogan, you aren’t saying, “This is my thinking process.” You’re saying, “Guess what? I’m one of the 100 million Americans you cowards will have to disarm. We’re all over the place, punk.”

    I note that lies4sale seems to be deleting pro-gun responses to his hate, without deleting his responses to those responses. He also talks about Blackwater putting people in the “USSA” in FEMA camps. He’s a lunatic in addition to being a coward hiding behind Domains by Proxy. (OTOH, you, Sebastian, know his IP from whence he posts on your blog–hint hint).

    • Sebastian says:

      I do, but as a matter of courtesy to readers, I don’t reveal that publicly. Even for people on the other side.

    • RuffRidr says:

      I note that lies4sale seems to be deleting pro-gun responses to his hate, without deleting his responses to those responses.

      An anti-gun blog moderating the comments to frame the argument to their choosing?!?! You don’t say! Where have I seen that before? Oh ya, every other anti-gun blog in existence has moderated to some degree.

    • Cargosquid says:

      He hasn’t deleted any that I can see….yet. And mine should tick him right off.

  3. Miguel says:

    He is asking to ban my guns? He is the one being quite uncivil.

  4. Bryan S. says:

    “A symptom of the gun obsessed macho hero complex culture of America. Of course the average US citizen has never found themselves on the wrong end of a gun. So whether they’d actually be able to do something about it or piss in their pants is in question.”

    Tenn maybe we should start teaching our kids how to handle at a young age, in school, and then as they get older, mandatory self defense classes?

    Screw soccer… USPDA!

  5. Cargosquid says:

    This is going to be fun. I just posted a reply to his? first post. I’ll get to the latest in a while.

  6. Thirdpower says:

    Sounds like his knowledge of the debate comes from Denny Henny’s book and the Brady Website.

    I mean seriously, he uses the same ‘bumper sticker’ argument that Denny did and his very first post pulls out the “2A only refers to muskets” bit while he’s typing on a computer and the Nukes bit.

    Nothing to see here. Move along. Anything you say he’s just going to use to re-enforce his per-concieved bigotry.

    • Cargosquid says:

      Ahh…but its another place for the lurkers to read PRO-2nd Amendment arguments. That’s how we win.

      And its fun to poke them with sticks. They froth at the mouth so prettily.

  7. Cargosquid says:

    Well, I posted my second one at the new place. I hope it hurts.

  8. Robert says:

    A well-educated activist, being necessary for effectiveness on any issue, should know their opponents arguments and positions well enough to be able to argue their positions as well or better than they can.

    That has a familiar ring to it, somehow. I’m sure I’ve read that (or something very much like it) somewhere else. It’ll come to me, I’m sure.

  9. Me, I’m not going to bother. I got all this “debate” stuff out of my system over at “Common Gunsense”. The word “debate” means “you agree with everything I say” to the anti-gun activist. Now I don’t even bother to go to Japete’s site. Thanks for listing another I won’t visit.

    • Cargosquid says:

      Who’s debating? I’m poking. I already got him?to reveal his bigotry…..other than the anti-2nd amendment thing. The more you poke them, the more they reveal, the more the lurkers will ignore them. THEIR words defeat them.

  10. Prophet says:

    My favorite was #8

    First of all, reasonable gun control debates are not advocating “banning all guns” in the United States, largely due to the 2nd amendment, but also other factors including most Americans believe in the right to own guns, including myself. So nobody’s talking about banning all guns

    As I discovered in California here:

    http://gunowners.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/the-legislation-is-unconstitutional-take-us-to-court-4/

    is that nobody must like California a whole lot cuz he’s talking up a storm.

    • Cargosquid says:

      But its clear…its not ALL GUNS. Just the ones they don’t like. You can keep your musket.

      For now.

    • weapons4sale says:

      This is for PROPHET
      How does that link refute my #8?
      Its a bill to ban “mag magnet” and “bullet buttons” conversion kits in California.

      By the way, what DO you guys use guns with multiple clips and semi-automatic weapons that can shoot 100 or more bullets at a time FOR?

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/sb-249-ca-sen-leland-yee-gun-control-bill_n_1752190.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

      • Thirdpower says:

        100 or more bullets at a time? I’ve never seen a pepperbox AR. That would be a sight.

      • J says:

        I do not pretend to be a firearms expert but I am not aware of a firearm that uses multiple clips. Anyone here ever heard of such a firearm? Better yet, W4S, can YOU tell me one weapon that uses multiple clips? I mean, given your passion about this debate you must be fairly knowledgeable on the subject of firearms. Right?

        • Robert says:

          Ignoring the mistaken use of the term “clip”, there are a few guns that have multiple magazines. The XM29, for instance, had two magazines: one for 5.56 NATO rounds and one for the 20mm grenade rounds. Also, the “master key” configuration (rifle with underslung shotgun) technically has two magazines: the tubular shotgun mag and the detachable box magazine for the rifle. Then there’s the dual and quad machine gun configuration, which is usually used for anti-air.

          Notice that all of these are military arms, none of which are available to civilians without going through the NFA process (and even then you couldn’t get an XM29).

          • J says:

            Robert, thanks for that but I was trying to use a slightly more nuanced version of the “there’s a difference between magazines and clips (and your arguments are even sillier as a result” meme.

            I think that the KSG is arguably a double magazine weapon though, of course, the tubes are not readily removable. UTS-15 would be in the same boat.

      • Cargosquid says:

        I’ll answer you. Saves on reloading time to use larger magazines. If you’re talking about automatic weapons…pure fun turning money into noise.

      • AntiCitizenOne says:

        Two words: multiple assailants.

      • Patrick H says:

        I use them because its less time to grab a loaded mag than to fill a mag. I use them because sometimes mags fail, so in a situation I might need more than one. Sometimes rounds fail to fire, so I need more than 10 rounds.

        Regardless, it doesn’t matter why I need them- there isn’t a good reason to ban them. Except irrational fear of course.

  11. weapons4sale says:

    ” but to pretend this debate has been only about bumper sticker sloganeering is to erect a straw man”

    Well when Mitt Romney and the most powerful Anti Gun Controllers stop talking in scripted one liners and slogans and avoiding the debate, Ill be calling attention to it any way I can.

  12. GMC70 says:

    After viewing W4S’s writings, frankly, he’s almost as delusional as Joan. If this is the best the anti-freedom folks can muster up, well, we have nothing to fear.

  13. Weer'd Beard says:

    Eh, just another troll looking to stir the pot for no gain.

    My personal rules of engagement are to address blogs from the BIG fish, people who work for or draw a paycheck from the Joyce Foundation and/or the Brady Campaign.

    Those people speak for a greater evil, this joker just speaks for himself, and all of his power is what WE give him.

    Don’t feed the trolls.

  14. This is just a sock puppeteer blathering on about the typical anti gunner talking points….NRA this….NRA that….website is just a little too slick to be purely DIY…

    My money says this person works with Duh Mayatollah or CSGV in some regard….just like that twitter account @HeyHeyNRA….

    CSGV has dabbled in personal attacks against gun owners…then @HeyHeyNRA comes on the scene and ratches up the hate, and now this website ratches it up even further…

    but that’s just my $.02

    • Thirdpower says:

      He seems to want to take up the mantle of the defunct ‘Gun Guys’, pretending to be a pro-gun site the posting nonsense.

  15. Sebastian says:

    I am utterly bowled over by the intellectual rigor of our opponent here. Can he make a serious argument? Or is he doomed to be another peddler of Word Salad a la Joan Peterson.

    • mike says:

      PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE give this guy plenty of traffic. He’s like a gun control gift that keeps on giving.

      • Weer'd Beard says:

        I’m starting to think that traffic is WHAT they want.

        Remember, MikeB302000 started out as just a lefty-talking-points blogger, then an anti-farming vegetarian blogger, an anti-war blogger, and an anti-death penalty blogger (he might have spent a few moments prattling about abortion too).

        It wasn’t until he started talking about banning guns that anybody payed any attention to him, now its all he blogs about.

        I have my doubts he cares a wit about guns or gun laws, what he likes is attention.

  16. NotClauswitz says:

    I’m just waiting for the other cliche to drop: “…vote against their own self interests.” That’s a Lefty straw talking-point and dog-whistle all in one!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. That Didn’t Take Long | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] A few weeks ago I pointed out we seemed to have a new anti-gun blog in our midst. Thirdpower…
top