Images of the Antis: Abstinence Only

This is a good one:

First let’s see the video

Ok step one, look at that disclaimer at the front-and-center. Now look at the image. Billy Johnson works for the NRA but speaks for himself. Now we can reflect that NRA is not horribly offended by his statements, as he has not be fired from his position. Still this is the FURTHEST thing from “NRA Policy”.

Still I don’t see what the big deal is. We’re one of the most heavily armed countries in the world. Guns are out there. We also have a ton of roads and cars, so we teach kids how to safely cross the street. We teach kids about the dangers of illegal drugs. We teach kids the ins-and-outs of sex, and the dangers of it.

That last one can be oped out of in most schools, but there are some schools where the sex ed class is mandatory. I’m fine with that, sex can indeed be dangerous, emotionally, and physically. My parents taught me about sex long before the teachers were talking about it. It was a smart move, it meant THEY were teaching those lessons, and anything my teachers had to add were simply supplemental, and given that I had a good understanding of the issue, I could easily ask questions.

But for folks not as proactive as mine, sex is still out there, and the desires are still there. Ignoring them won’t make them go away, and very well might make them worse. The same goes for guns. Guns exist, and even if you don’t like guns or have them, they are out there. I fail to see how basic firearms safety can in any way be a DETRIMENT to people.

Hell that’s why I shot my first gun. I was 19, I didn’t understand or like guns, but to burn an afternoon and learn how to use guns seemed like a no-brainer.

Turned out to have changed my life, but it doesn’t have that effect on everybody.

Of course the real reason why anti-rights people (who constantly crow about “safety”) wouldn’t want something like this taught to age-appropriate children is it puts guns in a light that shows them as ANYTHING but bad.

They can’t have that. They can’t show how FUN it is to shoot guns. They can’t show people saving lives with guns. They can’t show history with guns. They can’t show family connection with guns.

They can only show them as horrible lumps of pure evil, because ONLY THEN do their ravings look sane.

Also check out Sean touching on the same subject.

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

7 Responses to Images of the Antis: Abstinence Only

  1. The_Jack says:

    Wow, Nanny state? Heck of a projection there.

    Course these are the exact same people who scream about “Militia!” “Well-regulated!”

    Well… you know what MDA? If we went to a well-regulated militia system then *yes* riflery and arms training would be a mandatory part of school ciriculum. How else do you think a “well regulated militia” would come about?

    But hey, we finally found a type of mandatory training that the anti’s don’t like.

  2. Bubblehead Les says:

    Well, I’m not in Charge of the NRA or the World, but if I were, I’d make the Eddie Eagle Program MANDATORY for all Schools.

    To quote the Anti-Gunners: “IF it saves only ONE Life, it’s worth it!”

    • Erin Palette says:

      Right on, Les. Keep hammering on those two points — “abstinence only” and “if it saves ONE life” — and watch the grabbers foam at the mouth as their arguments are used against them.

    • Geodkyt says:

      Unfortunately, when I was on the local school board, I proposed that we use the Eddie Eagle materials as free safety training.

      The reactions from the (majority) liberal members was akin to me suggesting that we start each day’s classes with a Catholic Mass. . .

  3. Archer says:

    Baldr hit on this in his latest post, with all the usual straw man arguments.

    I fisked the crap out of it.

    Goes live late tonight. Check it out tomorrow. 🙂

  4. Jack/OH says:

    Billy Johnson’s thinking sounds worth considering to me. Demystify guns, undemonize gun enthusiasts. Show young folks what responsible ownership and lawful use of guns are all about. (BTW-my own gun experience is very limited. My Dad was career air force, but not a gun guy. My Mom owned a .22 revolver she bought mail order pre-GCA. I qualified with the M-16 back in the 1970s; fam-fired the 1911. Later I bought a Mauser .380 ACP, then sold it. Haven’t owned a gun since, but I’m still batting the idea around. Why am I commenting here once in a while? Weer’d runs a good site. The comments are sharp. The anti-gunners are so damned wrong on multiple levels; there simply are no “hypnotizing rays” (my term), as the anti-gunners would have it, that compel anyone to unlawfully use a handgun. Plus, I think I know bullpuckey when I see it, and the anti-gunners are full of it.)

Leave a Reply

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