My Disdain for Antis

As you can tell from reading this blog you’ll see I don’t have any respect to those who promote gun control. I believe it was Ronnie Barret of Barret firearms and the NRA Board of Directors who said anybody who supports gun control is either ignorant or sinister.

I know I’ve said it before but I’ll do a quick re-cap. I used to be anti gun. I grew up in a liberal suburb in a home where my folks still don’t much care about guns (we’re getting a bit better, but I doubt they’ll ever be crazy about guns, and I doubt either of them will ever come to the range with me). I was also a teenager during the golden-age of gun control. The 1990s. Between the ignorant anti-gun teachers, and the ignorant anti-gun news media, and the Brady Campaign (back when that meant something) were in full force.

The crux of the anti-gun arguments are rooted in things that SOUND like good ideas. Banning guns will lower “Gun Death”. “Assault Weapons” are more dangerous than “Hunting rifles”. People who carry guns are paranoid and dangerous. You are X times more likely to shoot a loved one than an attacker. Its too easy for the wrong people to buy guns.

Then a friend took me shooting. It wasn’t like I suddenly was pro gun because I had just spent an afternoon having fun shooting. I still thought they should be banned….but maybe I could get one…just for fun, you know!

I didn’t have the money…nor was I old enough (but I didn’t know that at the time), and given that it was now 1999 I had this thing called the INTERNET!

So from the comfort of my Dorm room, I read about guns. Given that the “Assault Weapons Ban” was in full effect, I ended up reading a lot about that.

bayonet lugs? I’m supposed to be afraid because the GUN has a KNIFE on it???

Flash hider? Seemed to make sense watching Rambo shoot a blank-adapted gun. With no bullet the powder quickly leaves the gun and most of it burns up in the air rather than in the barrel. My first day at the range I shot a .460 Weatherby magnum! This was an ELEPHANT gun and amazingly powerful, and it doesn’t make much of a flash at all. I remember seeing a souvenir video of my Buddy at basic training (we laughed our ass off at the Gas tent section!) but I still was surprised at the rifle range seeing my buddy shooting an M16 and there was NO flash.

Grenade launcher. Makes sense with this! Only an M203 40mm grenade launcher is an NFA firearm in itself. No the AWB is only talking about these. Really….really.

And it seemed that they always claimed “Assault Weapons” were more powerful than hunting rifles. (The picture is a .223, a .243 Winchester, and a .308 Win) Note all are “hunting cartridges” but the smaller one is the common round fired from AR-15 “Assault Weapons”. I remember people saying you can’t hunt with an AR-15 because it would “Blow the deer apart!”. Now AR-15s are one of the most common hunting rifles…and most deer hunters get a 6.8 SPC or more powerful upper, as the .223 Rem is a bit underpowered, at least for the larger deer we have around here.

My point being that I found out the “Assault Weapons Ban” was a total lie (and that was before I first set foot in a gun shop and found that the walls were covered with ARs and AKs, and there were boxes upon boxes of surplus “pre-ban” magazines…so “ban” was just as spurious as “Assault Weapon”)

When I found one MASSIVE hole in the anti-gun argument, I obviously wondered how true anything else was. When I found more lies I started to think “Well they can’t ALL BE LIES, can they?”

Yes, Mr. Beard, they can be. They can be, and they are.

Anybody who supports gun control is either sinister or ignorant. Mr. Barret is as right in philosophy as he is in making kickass guns.

This brings me to present with an extended comment to Joe Huffman’s troll Ubu52.

Go read the comment thread for the full effect, but I closed with this set of questions:

BTW in case I didn’t tell you, as recently as 1999 I would have 100% agreed with your above statements (tho I’ll note that the whole punitive insurance scam is a more recent invention)

A few people raise some points I found VERY shocking, and unbelievable about guns and gun control, so I decided to research them, just to prove that person wrong in spades. Turns out I was wrong. Lead me to question everything I thought I knew about guns and gun control.

I had a choice, then, support laws I knew that punished and got good people killed while taking no effect on the criminal element that makes the headlines, or switch sides and start supporting gun rights.

Really this leaves me two questions for you, Ubu. #1. You’ve likely seen all I saw that convinced me gun control was completely spurious and dangerous, and have chosen to support it anyway, Why? OR #2. You have seen some data or some studies I haven’t in all my years of verifying that I made the right choice to both go against gun control, but to own and carry guns. Can I see that?

When I was a new gun rights supporter I was constantly looking for people wanting to debate. I had been wrong once before, I knew I could be wrong again. This goes double when you consider that now I OWN guns. If I’m putting myself or my family in undue danger, I’d want to know!

Nothing. Seems that lots of people ask a simple question that is the crux of the debate, like Joe’s “Just One Question”, never has an anti-rights supporter answered that question. PERIOD. FULL STOP. DO NOT PASS GO!

Think about that. They support restricting guns in the name of safety, guns have existed for nearly 1,000 years, and personal arms for all of recorded history, and restrictions on arms has existed for almost all of that time.

Yet nobody can answer: “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?”

Note the people being asked this aren’t housewives and laymen who might not know much about guns or history…but PAID LOBBYISTS, and Politicians who have made gun control a cornerstone of their careers.

Just look at these questions. They’re so simple, and if they can answer them THEY WIN!

You show me that I’m at greater danger owning a gun than being unarmed, and you might as well take my guns away. Also I’ll give them up willingly. I carry and own my guns for safety of myself, my family, and my friends, as well as for law-and-order in general.

Prove that wrong, and I don’t have a leg to stand on.

Of course if they answer the truth and never have people been safer when personal arms were banned, or that there isn’t any data or reputable reports that show guns to be dangerous in the hands of lawful citizens.

This is why they will NEVER debate an knowledgeable pro-freedom person, even people like bloggers who aren’t paid lobbyists, or full-time activists. We’re literally armatures and they are literally professionals, and they are TERRIFIED of us because we’re right, and they’re wrong.

They KNOW they aren’t making us safer. They know this and they advocate for bans and restrictions anyway. They are evil.

I have no respect for evil.

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

0 Responses to My Disdain for Antis

  1. Jay G. says:

    Awesome, Weerd. Just awesome.

  2. Erin Palette says:

    Guns have existed for a thousand years? Not unless you’re counting fireworks.

    Cannon? No earlier than 12th or 13th century, and that was in China. Other cultures started developing them in the 14th century or later.

    • Pyrotek85 says:

      Yeah I figured he meant anything black powder related at all, even then it sounded too early. Pretty long time though at any rate.

      • Weerd Beard says:

        Yeah I didn’t look up the exact history. I include the early “offensive fireworks” and rocket-propelled arrows as “Guns”, but I was maybe a bit too general.

        Needless to say “Gun Control” and “Weapon Control” is NOT a new idea, and the data set is literally HUGE.

        And they will NEVER address this because they are evil.

        • Pyrotek85 says:

          Oh no doubt, the Romans forbade the possession of swords, they knew the potential for rebellions. They would check the temperatures of rivers and streams, to see if there were any hidden forges (you needed the water for tempering, and it would of course heat the water).

          That’s what I find most silly, it’s not like we’re speculating about something that has never happened before, populations have been disarmed over and over throughout history, with horrifying results for the people.

          If we didn’t have guns we could very well be arguing over assault swords, minimum blade length, armor piercing tips, and even the dreaded shoulder hilts that go up. And no black scabbards!

        • harp1034 says:

          The crossbow was banned in many places in Europe during the Middle Ages. That was only on the common people. Those in power made sure their armies were well armed. Just like today.

  3. GayCynic says:

    The earliest known cannon, though not driven by gunpowder, was invented by Ctesibius of Alexandria, in the 3rd century BC. Little is known about this primitive invention—as most of Ctesibius’ works were lost—but it was noted by Philo of Byzantium that it operated using compressed air.[10] Like firearms, cannon are a descendant of the fire lance, a gunpowder-filled tube attached to the end of a spear and used as a flamethrower in China.[11] Shrapnel was sometimes placed in the barrel, so that it would fly out along with the flames.[12] Eventually, the paper and bamboo of which fire lance barrels were originally constructed came to be replaced by metal.[13] It has been disputed at which point flame-projecting cannons were abandoned in favor of missile-projecting ones, as words meaning either incendiary or explosive are commonly transliterated as gunpowder.[14] The earliest known depiction of a gun is a sculpture from a cave in Sichuan, dating to the 12th century, that portrays a figure carrying a vase-shaped bombard, firing flames and a ball.[13][15] The oldest surviving gun, dated to 1288, has a muzzle bore diameter of 2.5 cm (1 in); the second oldest, dated to 1332, has a muzzle bore diameter of 10.5 cm (4 in).[11]

    From Websters,

  4. Robert says:

    Flash hiders aren’t for hiding flashes, as the antis would like you to believe, but rather for directing the flash in such a way as to not obscure the sight from someone who is firing the gun at night. The Flash is generally still visible to both the shooter and to the target.

  5. Pingback: Fluke, Weer'd and Glock | Serious Gun Blog

  6. julie says:

    Interesting read. Thanks

  7. Daniel in Brookline says:

    Great stuff, WB!

    Have you seen the one response to Joe’s Question, by the way? Yes, there was a time when “the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons. (Hint: check the wording of the question carefully. Second hint: the Bradys ain’t gonna like it.)

    Thanks for pointing me to Joe’s Question, WB; I love it!

    I’m reminded of a similar idea, one so simple and yet so profound that it turned my head around: the Jews in the Attic test. (And wouldn’t you know… that’s by Joe Huffman too! Wow.)

    Daniel in Brookline

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Well the positive answer to Joe’s Question (again seen with the massive gun sales, carry permits issued, and bad laws repealed or amended to liberalize carry and lethal force law, The Obama Presidency’s threat to restrict arms has made us all safer as well) isn’t one from the side of the Antis, so it doesn’t really count for my argument.

      The “Jews in the Attic” is simply a good litmus for when government “Help” becomes overreaching.

    • Joe Huffman says:

      Thanks for the praise.

  8. Gerry says:

    Well said D’Beard

  9. I was also a teenager during the golden-age of gun control. The 1990s.

    I thought you were much older than that. Guess I need to read your blog more. Looks like I’m not the only young whipper-snapper ’round here!

    Very nice post. It’s a good thing to remember that we’re right. We don’t have to lie (they do). We don’t have to intimidate (they do). We don’t have to construe data to fit our argument (they do). We don’t have to attempt to redefine constitutional law in order to make it legal (they most certainly do). When we keep that in mind, we win.

    I sure like being on this side.


  10. John Farrier says:

    I avidly supported gun control until my freshman year of college. For a political science class, I had to write a persuasive paper about a controversial political issue. I chose to write a paper advocating gun control.

    Then I did some basic research, read the different arguments, and switched sides.

    There were many good arguments, but the one that sealed the deal for me is that an armed citizenry is the final safeguard against tyranny.

  11. Dale Olson says:

    Even Jesus’ disciples were armed in their day, remember when Peter cut off the Roman’s ear with his sword in the garden?

    • Weerd Beard says:

      And a SWORD! Back then the only tool you ate with was your hands and your knife. You used knives and axes and hammers and such to do your daily tasks. But a Sword? It was a formidable weapon of war designed only for killing.

      Of course the antis point out that Jesus didn’t appropriate Peter’s zeal and warned him that being brash with a sword could get him cut down some day. Still you can’t CONCEAL a sword from a regular man (and Jesus wasn’t one of thems) you see Jesus objecting to uncalled for violence, but not against the fact that Peter (and most of his other Disciples) were packing Iron! The antis don’t like to talk about THAT part of the Bible.

  12. Pingback: Anti-gun Fundamentalists | Guns, Cars, and Tech

Leave a Reply

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