Annoying the Opposition By Using Their Own Logic

Anytime a remark of mine spawns a post on CSGV’s “Things Pro-Gun Activists Say That We Take Out Of Context I feel I must be doing something right. I finally got tired of them spewing their peacenik nonsense, and tried to make them live up to the logical conclusion of their rhetoric, which would be that the violent, armed resistance that was necessary to eradicate Nazism in Europe was an immoral act. Apparently they didn’t appreciate that, and went off at length to mischaracterize my statement as suggesting that advocating non-intervention was the same as outright support.

But the fact is, anyone who advocated for waging peace against the Nazis, or sitting idly by while Hitler conquered Europe and wiped the Jewish people off the face of the planet, certainly fits in the category of those who “would have let Hitler finish his final solution.” Perhaps that is a logical conclusion of CSGV’s rhetoric for which they are deeply uncomfortable. But I suspect that is the case.

I would point out I never got a satisfactory answer to my question posed here, and ultimately CSGV had to cop out of that particular conversation, suggesting that questions about how to defeat Hitler by waging peace were above their pay grade, even though they themselves advocate this philosophy on a regular basis.

26 thoughts on “Annoying the Opposition By Using Their Own Logic”

  1. When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. – Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),

  2. “Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.”
    Sara Brady
    Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
    The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.
    “If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things.”

    “This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
    Adolph Hitler
    Chancellor, Germany, 1933

    1. I know we have a pretty high level of disdain for Sarah Brady, but do you really think the wife of Reagan’s press secretary is trying to usher in a socialist utopia?

          1. So’s the second, since the Weimar Government had stricter gun control that the Nazi one – and because nobody’s ever been able to find a reference to it in any of Hitler’s copiously-recorded speeches.

            (Plus it’s just not how Hitler spoke. The tone’s wrong.)

          2. Well, has it among their Sarah Brady quotes as does, two of the most reputable quote sources on the web. Additionally, this pip appears: first in its succinct form (quoting Mrs. Brady) “I don’t believe gun owners have rights.”

            And in its fuller form “They are looking only to protect gun owners’ quote – and I stress that – rights, because I don’t believe gun owners have rights. ”

            BrainyQuote also has THIS revealing look into the mind of gun grabbers “We must get rid of all the guns.”

  3. Ugh, I followed the provided link and went to CSGV’s website. I think I lost some brain cells just by being there. The only valid point that I noticed was that there are some of us who say nasty, hateful things. Big deal. They want to deny us a God-given right of self-defense and make us defenseless against any future evil government. Yeah, I have some choice four letter words for them and their approach to tyranny, I just keep these impolite words in my head and don’t write them down, but they probably apply.

    What I did not see is a real rebuttal to the need to use force to oppose evil, such as Nazism. Sure, they note that they have a bunch of Jewish groups that are affiliated, but that is far different from declaring that violence, such as war, is often justifiable. Actually, it is axiomatic that a failure to use force to oppose evil is immoral and evil.

    Finally, their display of the Nazi memorabilia at gun shows is not that big a deal. It really means nothing. I doubt it was flying off the tables due to brisk sales. There are a wackos out there within every organization and so it’s sad trying to smear all the decent people with firearms because of a few bad apples. I’m sure that we could find some real losers in their membership rolls, too. What you have to do is to look at the general tone, goals, and methods of an organization. CSGV and their ilk want us to not have any firearms since all that they promote is more gun control laws and they never work. If they want to be taken seriously about “gun violence” they need to have a single goal; that is, to get legislation passed to have special sentencing for criminals that use a firearm to commit a crime. Basically, use a firearm for violence and get an extra 10 years without any time off for good behavior. That would do wonders with making criminals think twice about using a gun. We will never see them pursue this path though because it is not there goal.

  4. Typical Anti-Rights polarity shift right there!

    The bench standard is: “Look at all the gun violence in America, the streets are flooded with guns, and blood runs in the streets…oh and people who want to defend themselves are just paranoid!”

    ummm, which is it?

    Now “Gun Owners are Nazi Sympathizers and insurrectionists! Oh and Sebastian points out that we would support the Nazi Establishment’s destruction of rights and opposition of civilian firearms, what a fool!”

    Which is it guys?

  5. I think I see the problem: “Did we stutter in our previous comment”

    Unless they’re Ebony and Ivory’ing the Ipad, whoever is typing that erroneously thinks he/she is plural. How many voices, exactly, are they hearing, I want to know.

  6. Why do we give them the eyeballs? Seriously, guys, this is like the senior varsity cheerleader being worried about the opinion of the lowliest freshman D&D nerd. They just want your attention; your clicks are the only clicks they get. Without you, they’re nothing.

    1. Not so sure about that, Tam. CSGV exists exclusively because of the Joyce Foundation grants.

      I think they’ll continue no matter what. Meanwhile, the more eyes we put on their insanity A) Seems to invoke more insanity, and B) Gets more people to know what a loony bunch of anti-freedom, pro-criminal rabble of reprobates they really are.

      Win win!

      1. Gets more people

        No, it doesn’t. You all already know that. See “choir, preaching to the.”

        If y’all’re having fun trolling them, that’s cool, but don’t kid yourself that there’s some silent audience of fence-sitters watching the “debate”.

      2. The purpose, in my mind is threefold, in order of importance:

        1. Entertainment – P.T. Barnum knew the value In a good freak show, and CSGV and their followers are a good freak show
        2. Rallying our side – People need villains, and CSGV are great villains.
        3. Demoralization of the Opposition – They should feel like they are surrounded by people who are opposing them and challenging their world view. This is largely how the other side got people to be ashamed to admit to being gun owners in polite society.
    2. I mostly just enjoy tweaking them from time to time. If I could have gotten them to admit some types of gun violence are just, that would have amused me to an even greater degree. There’s a certain entertainment in digging into a mind as bent as Ladd Everitt’s.

  7. That actually exposes the logical fantasyland that they come from. They think that no matter what, they will be able to go to court and get the government to stop.

    In their world, the government always lives up to the constitution, and there is no reason for an individual to ever oppose the collective will of the people.

  8. “I would point out I never got a satisfactory answer to my question posed here, and ultimately CSGV had to cop out of that particular conversation, suggesting that questions about how to defeat Hitler by waging peace were above their pay grade, even though they themselves advocate this philosophy on a regular basis.”

    That’s the thing, Hitler wasn’t special. The difference between what he did and what common murders do is a matter of scale, not scope. You let any murderous psycho get that kind of power and the same things will happen, which has been shown over the course of history. Nazi Germany wasn’t the only government to ever slaughter it’s own citizens and other civilians.

    1. +1 So many people elevate Hitler as Satan Incarnate, while ignoring people who amassed a larger body count like Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot.

      Of course those people didn’t have a land war with US GIs or invade Western Europe, so “Sensitive” “Progressives” don’t care.

      The real exception to the rule is the British Empire who didn’t simply execute Gandhi and his followers when they spoke out against the Empire.

      That is an odd one out.

  9. And of course they post it in a venue where they moderate/censor comments so there can be no rebuttal or presentation of the actual conversation. Ironic that they accuse me of doing that.

  10. Or, as Orwell said, “Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist“.

    (And equally pro-whatever-you-would-be-fighting-if-not-a-fascist, and there’s armed conflict.)

    Non-intervention is not quite the same as support, but it’s also not remotely true that pacifism is “just morally right because pacifism” or some parallel formulation.

    (Pure pacifists are free-riding parasites, is my take.)

    1. For me, pacifists are even worse than parasites; they get all uppity that they are morally superior for their views. That is so untrue! Of course, then real Americans have to get their hands dirty and bloody saving these enlightened individuals from our enemies. If they simply admitted they are cowards, I could accept that, but when they cloak themselves in unearned righteousness, that is too much.

      Moral parallels also exist with the gun control advocates. They want the police to shoot the assailant, but they don’t want to dirty their hands. They would be equally content if a SWAT team broke down my door and shot me for not surrendering some firearm that is declared illegal in the future.

    2. I have some respect for pure pacifists, even if it’s an outlook I disagree with. Pure pacifists would sooner die than to even allow others to defend their lives.

      Of course, most people who call themselves “pacifists” wouldn’t hesitate to call the police if they are being mugged, or call for the army to defend themselves. A certain essay on the “No Nonsense Self Defense” website points out that a lot of people who think they are pacifists don’t hesitate to use language and (minor) bullying to get what they want, and when they get a whiff of actual physical violence, they scream “Don’t touch me, I’m a pacifist!”. Ironically, since such “pacifists” are actually violent, they attract violent people, some of whom won’t accept their cries of pacifism.

      Just looking at that aweful CSGV website, though, I get the “vibe” that CSGV is filled with people who are the “verbally-violent pacifist” type!

      As for myself, I have looked over my life now and again, and have concluded I’m not a pacifist in this sense, though I’d like to be–I’d like to figure out how I can root out violence and coersion from my own actions, even the verbal ones. Having said that, I don’t think that carrying weapons, and using them for self defence, is at all incompatible with pacifism of this sort. Indeed, this stuff goes hand-in-hand.

      1. I would also add that true pacifists won’t force others to be pacifist, either–because force is violence, after all. Which is something that the gun-banners don’t seem to ever understand.

  11. I also think Baldr Odinson’s comment is rather funny: “The really funny thing is that many of these same racist gun zealots will claim that WE are the ones who are discriminatory because we want reasonable gun regulation (their read of the 2A is that it’s an anything-goes permission to do whatever they wish with guns, and that we are therefore going against a human right comparable to freedom from slavery), as if prohibiting the carrying of a gun in a school, for instance, is comparable to centuries of forced oppression and torture of Blacks!”

    Because there has never been a gun law passed, where the intention was to disarm Blacks, Irish, or other undesirables, while the Law turned a blind eye on the Desirables carrying weapons for their own self defense–where sometimes self-defense meant “Let’s go hunt down a few undesirables and kill them!”

Comments are closed.