Anti-Gun Talking Points Collection

So I’m currently reading Cathy Jackson’s delightful Book “The Cornered Cat”, and it got me thinking about the various talking-points and catch-phrases of the anti-gun people. We talked about it here, how the anti-gun talking points are often tried, and discarded when they are easily rebuffed, proven false, or just don’t grab the public ear.

Meanwhile Dennis Hennigan of the Brady Campaign attempted to argue against the simple talking points and catch phrases of pro-rights people in his book Lethal Logic. His table of contents is available on Amazon and the chapters go as following:
1.”Guns Don’t Kill People, People Kill People”
2.”When Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns”
3.”But What You Really Want…”
4.”An Armed Society is a Polite Society”
5.”We don’t need new guns laws. We need to Enforce the Laws we Have”
6.”Is Budweiser Responsible for Dunk Drivers?”
7.”From My Cold Dead Hands…”

Now 1&2 are expressly true, and I’m of half a mind to buy one of the Amazon used copies (I would prefer the kindle edition, but I have a thing against my money supporting bigotry and intolerance) to hear how he “Refutes” what is indeed the truth. People have been killing people for thousands of years before gunpowder was invented, and even today when gun crimes happen in every corner of the world, people are beaten, stabbed, run-over, burned, poisoned, and a myriad of other methods that one can use if your intent is murder or brutal physical harm.
#2. Obviously every corner of the world DOES have gun crimes, even places where guns are outlawed. So again, the only people without guns are the good guys, the bad guys can get guns if they want…otherwise they’ll make do with knives and clubs, and it won’t make a difference because the people who are being harmed are disarmed by the laws they respect.

#3. Is a tricky one but again, 100% true. I haven’t read the book but I assume its people pointing out the dishonesty of gun control advocates. A prime example was when they passed a law banning guns with pistol grips, bayonets, and Flash Suppressors. The gun industry quickly responded and ground off bayonet lugs, or started building barrels without that appendage, started permanently affixing muzzle brakes to the muzzles of their guns, and added stocks without extended pistol grips.

The Antis Response? They called this the industry “Exploiting a loophole”. If their intents were honest they would call this “Compliance with the law”, but we all know their intent was banning large numbers of guns, which they were unsuccessful at doing.

Another example is their recent harping on “State’s Rights”. They claim they don’t support laws because it doesn’t respect the rights of some states to infringe on the rights of their citizens. Except most of the laws they push and support don’t respect the rights of free states to remain free. Antis are indeed dishonest and liars, and such an accusation is very much true.

#4. If you doubt this spend an afternoon at a gun club, a gun show, or a shooting competition. If you find somebody who is rude or confrontational, it’s probably the anti-gun “researcher” trying to provoke an inappropriate action for the cause.

#5. Duhh. Name a current gun law that is presented to address a new problem that isn’t illegal. They don’t want background checks for the sake of background checks…they want them so people don’t sell guns to criminals (a crime). They don’t want the ATF to get data on multiple long-gun sales because buying multiple long guns is a crime, they just don’t want the multiple guns being trafficked to street gangs and drug cartels (a crime). They don’t want people carrying in restaurants not because there’s anything wrong with that, but because they don’t want people getting shitfaced and shooting people (crime and crime). Can I rest my case, or do they need a few more?

#6. This is actually the first time I read this statement presented in this way. The most common way is “Is *Car Company* Responsible for Drunk Driving?” I think this change is because like the gun industry, the alcohol production industry was also an industry subject to heavy prohibition, and was one of the first industries to be heavily monitored and controlled by the federal government (Conveniently the same Jackbooted Agency, the ATF). I do know that Budweiser offers community service, and classes for those engage in drunk driving or are problem alcoholics. I have no idea the mechanism behind these programs, if they’re done for pure altruistic charity, for tax benefits, or mandate by state or federal law. I won’t comment on that, but I will note that Oldsmobile was not questioned on the murder at Chappaquiddick, nor was Chevis Regal.

Of course #7 is a personal issue that we all must deal with if the antis ever win. There are certainly examples where the government confiscated arms from lawful citizens without retaliation. Some of those citizens were Americans. The Being pro-rights is being pro-freedom, and that includes the freedom to sell yourself into slavery, as well as the freedom for Mr. Hennigan to print lies.

OK so that was a LONG winded post to get your juices flowing on a homework assignment. Let’s list a bunch of anti-rights slogans, and talking points that have been abandoned ages ago because they just couldn’t survive on their own.

The perennials that keep popping up are the: “It will turn into the Wild West” or “People will be shooting each other over parking spaces.” “BLOOD IN THE STREETS!”

They seem to survive because they live in a small bubble when a law is presented, to a few months after it passes. Its always brought after the first anniversary of the law change showing indeed they were wrong.

Sebastian recently pointed out the “Guns from Lax States to Guns with Restrictive laws”…we’ve discussed the data that doesn’t support that here, still the “Iron Pipeline” myth centers around people buying guns in Georgia, and taking them up I-95 to New York City, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. This is used to explain the massive violent crime problem in Anti-gun states that isn’t present in states with lax laws. Yet if the violent criminals are (illegally, I’ll note) buying their guns in Georgia, or Virginia, Or Pennsylvania, or New Hampshire, why don’t they commit crimes there. Either it isn’t happening (Which the ATF data shows is the truth) or the criminals are on their best behavior because they’re concerned about getting shot. Either way, its a lie.

Of course my personal favorite was preferred by Paul Helmke during the Assault Weapon ban days, was that semi-autos fired with a “Finger twitch” not a pull of the trigger. Yeah that wasn’t a gaffe.

There’s always “These are weapons of war!”…in which I ask you what nation issues AR-15s, or Mini-14s, or the FNH PS90 et al. Now the weapons we DO see in War are variations of the Remington 700 hunting rifle…oops ignore the man behind the curtain, remember chapter #3, they say they aren’t coming for your deer rifle!

“Gun Show Loophole” which in most of its variants isn’t about gun shows, and doesn’t actually address a loophole of any sort.

“Compensating for the Size of your Penis…” Yeah because my .45 can get my wife pregnant, and if I had an 8″ Hog I could defend myself from violent assault.

“Gun owners are paranoid”, “you don’t NEED a gun.” , “If attacked the attacker will just take your gun away from you.” The internet killed these ones with the various collections like The Armed Citizen, or The Dead Goblin Count.

The use of the metric of “Gun Death”…I hope I’m personally kicking that one’s ass.

There are a bunch of others that are floating around attacked to current anti-freedom legislation, but I’m more interested in ones like “Finger Twitch” that have been abandoned because they were too worthless to survive on their own.

What you got?

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Anti-Gun Talking Points Collection

  1. Thirdpower says:

    One of my favorites, a variation on the ‘weapons of war': “Assault Weapons’ only use is to kill as many people as quickly as possible”. Which is why the police have exemptions for them even in restrictive states like CA, NY and NJ.

  2. Pingback: Anti-Gun Talking Points Collection…. « Freedom Is Just Another Word…

  3. McThag says:

    The “Weapons of War” bit is something I’ve gotten a couple of chuckles about from time to time.

    I have in my gun safe no-shit real live weapons of war. Not one of which was affected by the ’94-’04 federal ban. The SMLE Mk.III* saw action in WW1. The M1903A3 definitely saw action in WW2, I talked to the guy who carried it.

    But Thag, those are bolt actions!

    What about the Garand? Genuine semi-automatic weapon of war! Not a clone of one with disabled fire control; but real, as issued. Mine was made too late for WW2, but it may have been to Korea. The Garand is my favorite case. Semi-auto, and a real full-power cartridge. I recall that Springfield Armory made them during the ban that were identically featured to the GI issue; right down the the bayonet lug.

  4. 45er says:

    Great post. The one that always burns me is when they flat out state that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to citizens. From the arguments I’ve had, they either A. are able to completely ignore logic and context in order to make the argument that an amendment specifies rights of the government when every other right is specifically directed for the citizens or B. know this to be true and flat-out lie about it. Then, to bolster their argument they throw out a bunch of reference material from people on their side or decisions made by nutty judges which were most likely eventually overturned. It’s hard for me to have an argument when common sense is so lacking. It just makes me insane.

  5. 45er says:

    That and the “hunting” argument. That one just burns me because I also hear it from the “I own a gun, BUT…” crowd.

  6. Kristopher says:

    I have always felt that”From my cold dead hands” is a loser.

    If every gun owner wants his own personal Alamo, the BATFE will be happy to provide one.

    Gun owners need to be thinking “safe house”. Finding that the gun owner has disappeared, leaving behind an empty bank account, drained credit cards, name registered vehicles sold for cash to illegals, and a house that is empty except for a note saying “It’s on now, assholes”, would scare these jack booted thugs far more than staging another personal Alamo.

  7. alcade says:

    How about “We support the second amendment rights of sportsmen and hunters!”

    To which the standby reply is “Where does the second amendment say anything about sportsment and hunters?”

    That usually results in a change of subject “Well the founders couldn’t have imagined our modern day weapons!”

    This of course means even less because the colonists were armed with equal personal weapons to the British, as opposed to nowadays where selective fire weapons are typically prohibited items.

    What I always think is funny is when a state legalizes concealed carry, and the usual left wing editorials talk about road rage murders. When WI recently enacted their cc law I read one guy say “Well, I’m never going to honk or flip anyone off in traffic anymore.” This should definately overrule Hennigan’s #4 argument.

    Newsflash: “Annoying liberals no longer obnoxious in traffic!”

    • Pyrotek85 says:

      The founders also saw major changes in technology at the time. It’d be easier to say they couldn’t imagine something like the internet than to say they couldn’t have foreseen guns becoming more accurate/powerful/faster.

      • Weerd Beard says:

        Certainly they could imagine self-loading rifles. There were repeating arms around, be it the Puckle Gun, or the various repeating Air Rifles that certainly could sustain lethal fire.

        Note that odd that the founders couldn’t imagine an AR-15 (despite guns approaching it in function already existing) but they easily could imagine things like Telephone and the internet that are all covered under the umbrella of the 1st.

        Also note that the Antis are almost always pro War-on-Drugs, but the fact that the founders would drink, smoke, and ingest wide ranges of what are now prohibited or heavily restricted drugs back in those days is ignored.

        Great points guys!

  8. AuricTech says:

    Well, they had the term “Big Bullet-Blasting Boxes” to describe standard-capacity magazines. Amusingly, within a month and a half, they had replaced the BBBB term with the even-spookier “Assault Clips,” which naturally led to some creative graphics….

  9. HerrBGone says:

    My personal favorite is “Saturday Night Special” which is nothing more than an affordable handgun that could be used equally by a gang banger to knock over a gas station or by a low paid gas station attendant to prevent same. Most were of low quality and perhaps questionable reliability. But they were affordable. Since they were the first guns to be demonized by the antis, Handgun Control Inc. in particular, it proves the elitist/racist nature of gun control from the outset. I can just imagine the thoughts running through the alleged minds of the antis back in the day: “Gotta keep these guns out of the hands of them po folk and (racial epithet omitted).” The end result being that that those who need the protection of the Second Amendment the most are the first to have it taken away.

  10. The Jack says:

    And the racist roots are quite apparent given that Saturday Night Special used to be four words. With another N word between Night and Special.

  11. Joe in PNG says:

    “Why Do You Need…(more than 10 rounds, a shoulder thing that goes up, a ‘machine gun’, to carry a gun, ect)”.

  12. Archer says:

    How’s about the veritable “Just give the attackers what they want” crap? As soon as they released that one there were dozens of cases publicized where the victims complied and were shot/stabbed/beaten anyway. It’s still around, and I don’t know if it’s going away anytime soon, but if there’s one that was disproved immediately….

    Or my personal favorite (that’s NOT going anywhere, probably ever): “… for the children!!!”
    How about we let Dad (or Mom) teach basic gun safety to the kids, which will reduce the chances of “accidental discharges” … for the children?
    How about we let responsibly-aged children go hunting and fishing with their parents, both providing pleasant recreation and valuable life lessons in safety, survival, and the subtle meaning of the “food chain” … for the children?
    How about we follow Israel’s example and allow teachers, staff, and visiting parents to carry their (licensed, if necessary) concealed handguns on campus, thus helping prevent or stop school shootings … for the children?

    Or, we can let both memes continue, and “just give the attackers what they want”: a “gun-free zone” where they can go hunting … “for the children.”

  13. Daniel in Brookline says:

    I think Kathy Jackson had a good answer for the “give the attackers what they want” idea — if you do that, you are trusting your life to someone who has already demonstrated that he doesn’t respect your rights, and is willing to hurt or kill you to get what he wants — where he gets to decide if he’s had enough or not. Not a very good deal, is it? Heck, I’d rather trust a politician!

    To me, the issue of gun control boils down to this either-or question:

    1. You can arm yourself, gaining the ability to defend yourself against an attacker — but opening up the risk of your gun being used against someone you love.

    2. You can NOT arm yourself, thereby reassuring yourself that you’ll never have to live with the knowledge that your gun killed the wrong person — but now you have to rely on the police for protection, and hope that they get to you in time.

    Which of the two scares you more? Answer that, and I’ll know where you stand, and why.

    Please note, by the way, that the gunnies have a second-tier defense for the first case — educate your family, and all but eliminate the possibility of gun accidents in the home. The antis don’t have an answer for “what if the police don’t get there in time”… because there really isn’t one.

    cheers,
    Daniel in Brookline

  14. Cargosquid says:

    “Insurrectionists and rebels” any time the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment is mentioned while ignoring the fact that a militia is made up of all eligible citizens and they are SELF-TRAINED in firearms.

    Oh, and don’t forget “common sense” and “reasonable.”

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Also note that they use those brands to label people who get para-military training in the event that we need the citizen militia…oh and they were against the individual right to keep and bear arms, claiming that was a right reserved for the militia. So they oppose the individual right, and they oppose the militia, but they’re not at all about banning guns or taking your guns away….riiiight.

  15. jetaz says:

    I was once asked “Why do you carry a gun?”

    I looked him straight in the eye and responded, “Because I can’t beat you to death with my swinging cod.”

  16. Erinyes says:

    How about “My gun has killed less people than Ted Kennedy’s car”?

    Saw a great sticker the other day: You give peace a chance and I’ll cover you if it doesn’t work out…

    • Weerd Beard says:

      That sticker is also 100% correct.

      Well maybe no if you count my Mil Surplus guns that likely saw action in several major wars, or were issued to regimes who were known for killing their own people.

  17. Knotthead says:

    If you want a cheap, used copy, here’s a good place:

    http://product.half.ebay.com/_W0QQprZ72434097

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>