Tricks and Traps

I see a lot of this from the Anti-Freedom types:

Alcade- please don’t keep answering that question. It is a trick question designed to ‘get me” so I will not be answering it. It is impossible to answer anyway which is why you asked it. I don’t know why you want an answer to such an esoteric question.

Now I’m not picking on Joan Peterson, as her behavior is part of ALL the gun control activists. Most simply don’t allow comments, or questions on their blogs, and certainly make all attempts to avoid opposition in public. Joan, to her credit is the best of her treacherous ilk, as she does allow SOME comments, and occasionally will make statements that are designed to sound like she’s answering questions.

As you’ve seen from countless posts here they are abject liars. To them the truth is the enemy, so they must do everything in their power to obscure the truth (this is why even tho Joan allows comments, about 60% never see the light of day)

The question asked that invoked the above quote? “At what point would you say “Yes, your rights are being infringed.”? ” That’s it. That’s a simple question, and she calls it a trick?? Other “Trick Questions”

“What is the functional difference between an ‘Assault Weapon’ and its ban-compliant variant?”

“Why is the line drawn at 10 rounds?” See also 18″ shotgun barrels, or 16″ rifle barrels, see also the Numbers Game

“What is ‘Armor Piercing Ammunition?”

“Can you recommend a firearms safety class for me or my friends?”

and here’s a big one that is an ideal litmus test for an anti-rights goon. They will ALL Balk at this one, 100%.

“What type of gun or guns do you think are OK for Americans to own and won’t need further restriction?”

They hate all guns, and any person who isn’t opposed to owning guns. They know the time for their Utopia is not yet here, so they must start small…but there isn’t a gun they won’t ban. Not your Mossberg 500 Duck gun, not your Winchester M70 Deer rifle, not your Antique S&W top-break revolver, not the M1911 that your Great Grandfather carried in the Trenches of France and brought home to pass down to his heirs, not the replica Brown Bess Flint-lock you use in war renactments, not your .22 Olympic biathlon rifle.

They hate all guns, but they know they can’t say that. So asking them questions of the sort is a trap.

I’ll end with this great quote from Robb

Funny as that is, we don’t see that. I don’t see many posts, opinion pieces, or articles that start off with “I’m a gun banner but…”, do you? I think the reason is because gun owners know they’re right and don’t need to hide behind the identity of someone else to try to con others into believing them. The truth tends to be self evident and we do not need to appeal to authority to make it so.

Gun banners? They do. They know their brand stinks, so they coopt an identity in order to peddle their wares, hoping that being sold lies by a ‘gun owner’ is more palatable to people.

Its true, gun banners don’t even want to be CALLED gun banners…even when they’re banning guns! Seriously, try calling Joan Peterson a “Gun Banner” after she states a need to ban “Assault Weapons” or “Military Style Weapons”. No she’s not a gun banner, she just wants to ban guns.

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

0 Responses to Tricks and Traps

  1. Pyrotek85 says:

    Apparently as long as she isn’t advocating for banning ALL guns, she’s not a gun banner. As long as someone, somewhere is able to own and carry guns, it isn’t infringement to her. I mean, you can get a CCW in New York for example, it’s just damn hard without connections. Rights are for everyone, not just for the rich or politically connected.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      And England and Australia hasn’t banned guns because you can still get your hands on a bona-fide firearam so long as you pick one of the approved firearms, pay the finefee, and have your background checked, as well as buy whatever accessories they feel will keep you safest with your guns.

      And of course you can’t use them for self defense….but why would you want to?

      This is “Common Sense”

    • mike w. says:

      Yep, I encountered this about a million times with the anti-gun bigots at Delaware Liberal. Man, they really took exception to being called gun banners, even after I quoted the definition of the word “ban” for them.

  2. Pat says:

    I dislike the hiding behind the catchy titles they have for their legislation.

    Its the banning of 30+ round death clips (fine print, anything more than 10)

    Its the banning of military-style weapons (anything black that goes bang)

    Its the banning of military-style ammunition (crickets….)

    Its the banning of criminals (really big crickets……)

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Yeah they talk about “Military Style Ammo”, I haven’t seen anything on linage which would ban .30-06, .308, and .275 Rigby, as well as scores of more exotic cartridges based on other service cartridges. I have heard people like the late Ted Kennedy mention he didn’t like ammunition that could puncture Police Body armor (which is Class II and IIA, so that’s ANY centerfire rifle round, including the sportsman staple the .30-30 Winchester Centerfire, which was introduced in 1895.

      As for “Military Style Weapons”, it actually bans guns the military would have nothing to do with. The US Army won’t use the AR-16, as they have perfectly serviceable M16s and M4s, but the Army has been taking M14s out of mothballs for use as marksman rifles in Iraq and Afganistan

      That rifle is damn near identical to the Civilian M1A which is 100% ban compliant. I do see a bayonet lug on the soldier’s rifle….but does the army even issue M6 bayonets anymore? Hell the armed forces don’t even do bayonet training anymore.

      And of course there are the sniper rifles which anybody can buy or build up from standard rifles…all of which have hunting setups as well.

      In the end its all a big lie, and they pick their targets by what they can sell to idiots with buzz words.

      Back in ’94 I thought they were banning Machine Guns…and I assumed if Full-auto was what it was, then this “Semi-Auto” that I had no idea about must be burst-fire. good ban that ’94 AWB….at least to a Weer’d who knew fuck-all about guns!

  3. Old NFO says:

    Good post and all good points!

  4. alcade says:

    What Joan doesn’t like to admit is that all her rules and restrictions use the “legitimate sporting use” view of firearms ownership. To her, there is no such thing as firearms rights, only privileges granted by the government. You’d think that with all the historical evidence on our side, pluse the two SCOTUS decisions, this would have become a moot point.

    You’d think.

  5. Linoge says:

    The question asked that invoked the above quote? “At what point would you say “Yes, your rights are being infringed.”? ” That’s it. That’s a simple question, and she calls it a trick?? Other “Trick Questions”

    Of course that is a “trick” question. It forces her to choose a point beyond which neither she nor her various organizations could go beyond, and Lord knows she does not want to limit herself in that fashion – after all, you and I both know what the end goal of the anti-rights cultists are. So, she prevaricates, she beats around the bush, she tries to demonize us to get the attention off her. Pretty standard tactics when you realize you are losing a conversation…

    • alcade says:

      It’s very convenient not to have any limits… that way when your gun bans fail to work, you can always say “Well, obviously we need to do more!

      At least British gun owners have provided an excellent example of what *not* to do. Though it is still sad to see the Empire decline into a nation of socialist geldings.

Leave a Reply

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