Images of the Antis: If The Shoe Fits….

“Grinds Your Gears”?

Baldr Gears

So I screen capped this so we could see that I grabbed this from Jason “Baldr” Kilgore of Ceasfire Oregon. Look, I’ve met a few people who don’t like guns, and would rather there be more laws in place, who AREN’T interested in banning guns. They are few and far between. Now there is a HUGE contingency that doesn’t want to ban ALL GUNS, they often talk about “Sporting” and “Hunting”, and maybe make comparisons to places like Canada, the UK, and Australia (tho oddly never South Africa, China, or Russia….). They don’t want to ban ALL Guns….just, you know, MOST guns. Is that somehow supposed to make you seem like LESS of a threat to our rights?

Now I’ll point out Jason is NONE of these things, he wants to ban ALL guns, as do most of the major players in the anti-gun lobby. People like Michael Bloomberg will still want to be able to keep the bodyguards for himself and his retainers, but “little people” shouldn’t have guns at all, for any reason.

So yeah, be they hardcore banners, or just “moderate” banners, they’re banners, and if they don’t like being called that…well I don’t care how they feel, because I care about my rights and my safety!

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

9 Responses to Images of the Antis: If The Shoe Fits….

  1. The_Jack says:

    It seems that a good part of the Anti’s anger at us is not because we disagree with them, but because we see through these obvious ploys and refuse to play pretend.

  2. C. S. P. Schofield says:

    So, basically what he’s complaining about is the classic complaint of the political left; mean people are telling the truth about him……

  3. Bob S. says:

    See Jason, your meme doesn’t work for a simple reason.

    Unlike you, we don’t ‘automatically’ assume anything.
    We don’t assume that people with guns will ‘just snap’
    We don’t assume that people with guns are ‘previously unconvicted felon waiting to commit his first crime”

    We don’t assume that ‘gun control’ equals “ban all guns”. We know that many do want to –because they have said so.

    We know because people like you, Joan Peterson, Michael Bloomberg and millions of others have stated that you’ll keep pushing for ever more restrictive laws.

    it isn’t an assumption and it isn’t automatic — it’s called experience.

  4. Stuart the Viking says:

    Just once I would like them to (honestly) give an example of a firearm that they DON’T want to ban, along with an intelligent explanation of why they believe that one firearm is OK, while other firearms aren’t.

    Hunting rifles are already out. We’ve already seen them talking about banning “Sniper Rifles”, and boiling it down the only difference between a sniper rifle and a hunting rifle is the critter on the receiving end. Don’t get me started on “assault weapons” which pretty much encompass anything else (including, as we’ve already seen, lever rifles).

    Most shotguns are out. Semi-autos because they are semi-auto (aka “machine guns” or “assault guns” by the anti). We’ve seen them try to ban pump action shotguns in numerous places because they “shoot too fast and are as deadly” as the semis. Double barrel shotguns? Anyone who has ever seen a western know that one of those things are only made for killing!

    Handguns? Please… Even the “smart guns”, so beloved by the anti in word if not deed, would eventually fall under the ban hammer in the anti’s perfect world, if only because they are concealable.

    Maybe single shots… but don’t hold your breath. Once the anti’s notice just how disturbingly accurate a modern replica of a Sharps rifle can be (this a design from the Civil War era), single shot rifles would be classed as “Sniper” rifles and… you guessed it… BAN!

    s

    • Thirdpower says:

      THe former head of IANSA stated that civilians should only be able to own single shot rifles/shotguns w/ a range of less than 100m after they have proven they hunt.

  5. Crotalus says:

    “…if they don’t like being called that…” Tough. Truth hurts, doesn’t it, Baldy Odious?

  6. As long as the police, and the State, and important people, and their body guards, and the private security for the big corporations can all get guns. That’s good enough for me. Oh, and of course, the criminals. They need guns just to get to work. Depriving them of guns is racist.

  7. Jack/OH says:

    Whining. That’s the term I’d use for someone who has the burden of argument, fails to carry the burden, then doesn’t have the good sense and dignity to withdraw from the public arena to re-group and re-evaluate. Then you whine that you didn’t make your case because those nasty people were picking on you? C’mon!

    The anti-rights crowd has smeared, demonized, “racist-ized” (my made-up term), propagandized a whole lot to do with firearms. Most, if not all, of that seems to have little factual basis, and not much on which to hang a good argument. Then you whine that you got caught at it!

  8. TS says:

    Ah, the old “appeal to the slippery slope logic fallacy” argument. How many times have we seen this from them. Here is where it falls apart: the slippery slope logical fallacy is where you oppose something not on it’s face, but because of where you think it might lead. Do gun rights supporters appeal to the slippery slope? Certainly. But it is only a logic fallacy if the only reason you oppose something is because of the slippery slope and you would otherwise support it if you weren’t afraid of the next step, and the next step, etc. I don’t know a single gun rights supporter who opposes whatever ban du jour they are asking for only because of the slippery slope. They oppose the ban on its face, and rightly believe the gun banners will just move onto the next thing to ban afterward.

Leave a Reply

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