Pro-gun extremists who occasionally leave comments on this site don't seem to realize how "fringe" they are. They think they are in the majority, despite all the polls that suggest otherwise. Fellas, the first step in overcoming a problem is to realize you have a problem in the first place. So, in the interest of helping you extremists out there realize you may need counseling, I've compiled a little list for you. If you recognize yourself in there, you might want to put down the AR-15 you're cleaning and call a good therapist.
YOU'RE PROBABLY A PRO-GUN EXTREMIST IF....
1) you think the Second Amendment was written so you could forcefully overthrow your government if you personally disagree with it.2) you gave a pink handgun to your pre-teen daughter for her birthday.3) you think it's perfectly reasonable for civilians to own a .50 caliber sniper rifle.4) you think a 5-minute background check is an infringement of your rights.5) you argue that an assault rifle is indistinguishable from a hunting rifle used to shoot deer or elk.6) you think firearms training should be a required class in grade schools.7) you call anyone who disagrees with you a "gungrabber," "anti-gun cultist," or "hoplophobe."8) you argue that a silencer is only useful to protect your hearing, and couldn't possibly be used by criminals to reduce the chance of detection in a shooting.9) you think children under 18 should have unsupervised access to a handgun "for their protection."10) you think gun violence statistics shouldn't count accidental shootings, shootings by law enforcement, defensive shootings, gun-related suicides, or pretty much any shooting outside of those that involve gangs or drug dealers.11) you think a citizen's paramilitary militia should be funded by your state in order to "help law enforcement."12) you see no problem with allowing people on the terrorist watch list to purchase guns.13) you accuse any article published in distinguished medical journals as being "biased" if it casts a negative light on firearms, no matter how respected and peer-reviewed the journal may be.14) you have prepared to resist a home invasion by jackbooted government agents coming to take your guns.15) you label gun control advocates as "pro-criminal" even though you oppose any measure to prevent guns getting into criminal hands.
16) you openly carry assault rifles into restaurants, parks, and stores to "normalize" the sight of guns to the public
UPDATE (3/28/15): HERE is a similar list from another writer.
1. Not quite--I believe that as a last resort, if a majority of the population disagrees with a government that is tampering with elections we should have the means to re-install democracy--and that by having that ability we reduce the likelihood of the need to use it.
ReplyDelete3. The feds set an arbitrary limit of .50 caliber to be owned without excessive paperwork, and arbitrarily exempted shotguns. What should the limit be and why, and what makes a shotgun slug so different from a rifle slug? How small would the new limit have to be to satisfy you?
4. What false positive rate would be acceptable in denying other constitutional rights?
5. What is the difference between a Remington Woodsmaster and an assault rifle, other than scary looks?
6. A couple hours a year of basic safety would save lives--not sure it is the best use of resources, but it's better than a lot of the requirements we already have. How can you disagree with saving the lives of children?
7. No, just the ones that have irrational fears.
8. Why are silencers required on cars, but not allowed on guns? Not counting spy movies, how often have silencers been used in crime?
9. Depends on the child and situation. Not usually, but it should be up to the parent-there are uncommon situations where it makes sense. .
10. The important statistics to me are the number who get shot through no fault of their own. Using suicide and criminal activity as excuses to add more regulations to the law abiding is dishonest.
12. The watch list is a fourth amendment issue. It would be a lot easier to deal with terrorism if we didn't have the bill of rights--why not suspend the 1st and 5th amendments to anyone whose name is put on a list?
13. Or if you read the article and find that the sensational headline doesn't actually match the findings, or that the sampling methodology is flawed--as in lumping criminals in with the law abiding.
15. How else should we characterize laws that disarm or harass the law abiding with no demonstrated affect on criminal misbehavior?
And Sevesteen pretty much summarized my answer and stole everybody's thunder with one exception.
ReplyDelete11) Although it would be a sweet irony to use Baldr Odinson's tax monies to pay for my guns and ammo, I would much rather provide my own and owe nobody, specially the government.
1) I believe that the traitorous revolutionaries that wrote the 2nd knew what they were doing. They did everything in their power to reconcile their differences with their Government before they revolted.
ReplyDelete2) Actually, I gave her a .22 rifle when she was in the 6th grade. My father gave me that rifle when I was in the 4th grade. She used her's with my direct supervision. My dad said "don't shoot anyone, and let me go.." Nothing bad happened in either case.
3) I think that intent means way more than caliber. Not many can afford to shoot something that costs $4.00 every time you pull the trigger and they do not commit crimes.
4) Should you have a 5 minute background check each time you want to make a blog post? Why is the 2nd less of a right than the 1st?
5) If they shoot the same caliber, have the same barrel length, and the same ammo capacity, then they are the same, no matter if they look different.
6) I suppose that you would prefer ignorance? How's that working out? What if we implemented the NRA eddie eagle program in every school (Stop, don't touch, Leave the area, Tel a responsible adult) How many lives would be saved?
7) How would you describe a fear of a mechanical device?
8) Why are silencers REQUIRED in most countries with STRICT gun control laws and not here?
9) I agree with the 1st comment. It would be unusual, but it's not like restraining orders save lives. There MIGHT be a situation where it is required.
10) How do YOU define VIOLENCE? Is a defensive shooting an act of VIOLENCE or an act of protection? Your argument would make anyone that isn't a pacifist "violent ".
11) You mean like the NC law just passed? It does EXACTLY that.
12) Being on a WATCH list is way removed from being a terrorist. Case in point. 1119 gun purchases were allowed to proceed by people on the watch list. Have you heard about the 1119 terrorist attacks? Me either.
13) Only when it is. My wife is an ER doc and they routinely tear apart studies in the journals as flawed, on MANY subjects.
14) So you have no means to resist a home invasion by ANYONE. Odd that you think anyone would start with us and not you.
15) When the law abiding are disarmed and the criminals are not, how would you describe it?
YOU'RE PROBABLY AN ANTI-GUN EXTREMIST IF....
ReplyDelete1) you think the Second Amendment was written in a vague manner, worded poorly and doesn't really prevent you from forcefully legislating gun ownership if you disagree with it.
2) you think a pink handgun is a lame attempt at trying to make it seem like women like guns.
3) You don't think it's perfectly acceptable to own a legal firearm, like say a .50 caliber sniper rifle.
4) you think a 5-minute background check is actually stopping criminals from purchasing guns. You also believe the ATF is doing a great job.
5) you use vague terms like "assault rifle" to indiscriminately malign everything from a hunting rifle used to shoot deer or elk to a sporting rifle used in competitions.
6) you think firearms awareness training is just 'giving in' to the NRA, even if it means innocent children are killed when they aren't trained to leave guns alone.
7) you call anyone who disagrees with you a "nutjob," "militia member," or "gun nut."
8) you argue that the main purpose of a suppressor is for assassinations.
9) you think children under 18 should not be allowed to know handguns exist "for their protection."
10) you think gun violence stats should include things like accidental shootings, shootings by law enforcement, defensive shootings of criminals, gun-related suicides, or pretty much any shooting of a firearm, ever.
11) you think a neighborhood watch group is a "citizen's paramilitary militia".
12) you see no problem with allowing people on a governmental watch list, but convicted of no crime, to be denied their constitutional rights or detained indefinitely.
13) you assume any article published in distinguished medical journals as being "un-biased", no matter how much money the researcher took from potential conflicts of interest.
14) you have prepared to resist a home invasion by jackbooted criminals posing as government agents by programming your speed dial for 911.
15) you label gun rights advocates as "pro-criminal" when they oppose any measure to prevent guns getting into the hands of people who are suspected of crimes, but haven't been convicted. Because if you think someone is guilty, we can skip the formality of a trial and go ahead and start denying civil rights to people we don't approve of.
And isn't it interesting that the pro gun extremists started commenting in concert with what you wrote? Some things will never change. Great blog. Thanks for writing it.
ReplyDeleteAs the others said.
ReplyDelete3. The gun owners think there's nothing wrong with it, because there *is* nothing wrong with it. IIRC, these rifles were target rifles long before the military adopted them.
5. As Sevesteen pointed out, the only difference between a semiauto deer rifle and an "assault weapon" is looks. That can't be disputed. Every time you or another control advocate claim otherwise, or refer to them as "rapid-fire", "weapons of war" or similar, you're *lying*. No ifs buts or maybes about it.
7. And you're different? You yourself name this list as descriptive of "extremists", when several of the examples (3, 5, 8 and 12 in particular) are *not* extreme, in fact they're quite sensible.
I've seen several people on your side refer to supporters of responsible laws as "gun nuts", "gun addicts" and "gunloons". You're hardly innocent on this one.
8. For legally owned ones, sure. I live in the UK, which suffers a vast number of irresponsible restrictions (that most unscrupulous people in the US debate would term "sensible"). *We* can own suppressors without the rigmarole that US gunowners are subjected to.
12. As I recall, your laws require due process before removing a person's rights. This "terror gap", if it can be called that, violates that requirement. A person can be arbitrarily added to this list in secret, without any possibility of removal.
There may be terrorists on the list, but there are far too many innocent people on it without the ability to challenge it.
Common sense dictates that misuse never comes before proper use. A legitimately sensible law prevents criminals or terrorists from gaining weapons while never, not *ever* penalising the law-abiding, innocent gun owner. The "terror gap" law and all of the bans anti-gun groups want are not sensible. The only accurate term for them is irresponsible.
Why thank you, Baldr, for elevating my words to the same level as Jeff Cooper's - that kind of endorsement (and it is an endorsement, especially from you) is genuinely appreciated!
ReplyDeleteSome quibbles:
ReplyDelete3) "you think it's perfectly acceptable to own a .50 caliber sniper rifle."
Many years before anyone wanted to ban those, many gunowners owned and used them lawfully. So was it unreasonable to own and use them lawfully back then, or only after some wanted to ban them?
There are many other new but similar calibers now available such as the 460 (46 caliber). Are they OK?
You only mention 50 cal rifles. Are 50 cal pistols OK?
4) "you think a 5-minute background check is an infringement of your rights."
I am fine with those checks, but many gun control advocates want to replace 5-minute background checks with mandatory minimum waiting periods of 5-7 days or more. If they renounced such goals, I might support extending those 5-minute background check to more types of gun sales.
5) "you argue that an assault rifle is indistinguishable from a hunting rifle used to shoot deer or elk."
I supported the 1994 AWB because it specifically exempted over 600 hunting rifles. But most gun control groups supported a "renewal" bill that revoked those exemptions. Since it was now gun control groups that could not distinguish assault rifles from hunting rifles, I had to join those who opposed renewal.
12) "you see no problem with allowing people on the terrorist watch list to purchase guns."
I want to keep people on the terrorist watch list from having guns -- I would also like to search their homes to see if they already own any. So I would support any measure to do either of those that does not violate the 2nd or 4th Amendment without due process. Giving bureaucrats the power to deny those rights by placing names on a secret list using secret criteria? Not so much.
sobriant74 did an excellent job in outlining the characteristics of an anti-gun extremist, but I think I can do better job with fewer words:
ReplyDeleteYOU'RE PROBABLY AN ANTI-GUN EXTREMIST IF....
1) You make a list titled "YOU'RE PROBABLY A PRO-GUN EXTREMIST IF...."
Full stop.
I find it hilarious that the blog poster and his supporters use massive generalizations and logical fallacies, and for the most part the pro-gun "extremists" have posted well reasoned and for that matter entirely reasonable retorts.
ReplyDeleteYet gun owners are the ones who are not sane? People fear what they do not understand, and I think it's quite clear from this post and from the inane content of the majority of American gun laws that gun control advocates simply lack understanding of firearms and their function. This is not innocent, it is a willful ignorance, and the fear enforces that ignorance as the fearful filter out all truths that might threaten their worldview.
If anyone is an extremist, it is those who wish to unreasonably restrict firearm ownership, which is a confirmed HUMAN RIGHT for Americans as laid down by the Bill of Rights and affirmed by the Supreme Court.
"3) you think it's perfectly acceptable to own a .50 caliber sniper rifle."
ReplyDeleteWhat's the issue?
"5) you argue that an assault rifle is indistinguishable from a hunting rifle used to shoot deer or elk."
Can you articulate for me the difference between the AR-15 sitting in my gunsafe at the moment and a Remington 700 in .223?
"8) you argue that the main purpose of a silencer is to protect your hearing."
What would it be for otherwise?
"6) you think firearms training should be a required class in grade schools."
What would you suggest children be taught in relations to firearms safety?
b
You should try reading the federalist papers.
ReplyDeleteThat should elaborate on numbers 1,3,4,11,12, and 14 for you.
Linoge: it's telling that you're flattered by a (weak) comparison to Jeff Cooper. After all, Cooper was a virulent racist and failed businessman.
ReplyDeleteI suppose, for you, such a comparison does represent something of a step up.
--JadeGold
8) Um, my ears ring due to a past profession's noise pollution. I'd like to keep what hearing I have left.
ReplyDeleteBTW, Huehueteotl's comment wins the thread.
ReplyDeleteImagine: accusing us of massive generalizations and logical fallacies and then Hue proceeds to make....massive generalizations and logical fallacies.
Then he declares the SCOTUS establishes "HUMAN" rights. Sheesh--I can't do irony like that.
Bravo, Sir--well played!
--JadeGold
HEY STUPID GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES- You are so stupid. This is you, trying to ban .5O BMG sniper rifles-"Herp derp whoa that gun looks powerful!and i have seen tv shows about it! I'm scared now, derp!"
ReplyDeleteGuess what idiot douchebags- Guns are never gonna go away, and your attempts to control them are destined to fail. Also, why aren't you trying to ban 20mm rifles and 14.5mm rifles,(and others) which are MUCH more powerful than .50 BMG.
Besides, have you ever heard of .510 dtc?
It's a clone of .50 BMG, created specifically for the purpose of avoiding the california ban.
KILL YOURSELVES!
Wow, you guys have really proven my points, both here and at your own blogs!
ReplyDeleteTo "anonymous" who posted about point 8: have you tried earplugs??
ReplyDelete@ "J": you need help.
ReplyDelete"To "anonymous" who posted about point 8: have you tried earplugs??"
ReplyDeleteWho has the luxury of putting in ear plugs in a self-defense scenario?
Aztec, as usual you pose a ridiculous scenario. Are you trying to tell me that you keep a silencer on your gun at all times, just so you won't lose your hearing if you are forced to defend yourself? I would HOPE you aren't having to defend yourself so much that the constant shooting causes hearing loss!
ReplyDeleteBalder, its painfully obvious that you've either never fired a gun or you're simply being dense for the sake of argument.
ReplyDeleteIt only takes shooting a gun indoors one time to cause permanent hearing damage. And any gun more powerful than a .22 is going to cause permanent hearing loss.
Therefore, I do keep a suppressor on my gun for the off chance I do have to use it for self-defense because defending myself shouldn't come at the price of my health.
And my health shouldn't be subject to a $200 punitive tax. Especially under the Obama administration that believes good health is a right and not a privilege that should be paid for.
@Baldr So what do you think the main purpose of a silencer is? Obviously you don't think it's hearing protection.
ReplyDeleteDid you know that one of the harshest penalties in the federal system is a 30-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of a silencer during a “crime of violence” or drug trafficking tight?
From Lexis.. From 1995-2005 there were 136 convictions for using or POSSESSING a silencer of those 8 were “crime of violence” or drug trafficking
so 90,000 convections per year. Let than 1 of those per year involve a silencer and you still oppose making it easier for law abiding people to have one.
Man, you think we are unreasonable..
Very well said!
ReplyDelete1. I think that the Second Amendment was written to recognize the rights of free citizens. We don't live in a tyranny, so there's no need for wild talk. We overthrow politicans at the ballot box.
ReplyDelete2. I don't have children. Color is about style, not function.
3. What's a sniper rifle? It's a rifle that's designed to put rounds within less than a minute of arc within the range of the cartridge used. Why do you object to accuracy?
The .50 caliber number is just one type. Any centerfire rifle could be used for sharpshooting, depending on the range--the military uses a variant of the .308 Winchester for many of its snipers, the same round as many deer hunters use.
That being said, I see nothing wrong with private ownership of a .50 caliber rifle.
4. There's no background check at a bookstore or for posting on a blog. Do you favor some rights over others?
5. An assault rifle, correctly defined, shoots an intermediate cartridge and has fully automatic capability. Without a Class III firearms license, Americans can't own assault rifles.
Now if you mean what is commonly mislabelled as an assault rifle, I don't see the point. Polymer frames and accessory rails don't change the basic function. A semiautomatic deer rifle with wood furniture is essentially the same weapon as the black plastic version, except that most deer rifles shoot a more powerful cartridge.
6. Why not? School budgets are stretched already, so I prefer a focus on basics, but I see nothing wrong with students learning a skill.
7. You expect public discourse to adapt to tender feelings?
8. Silencer is a misnomer. The correct word is suppressor. They don't reduce the volume all that much. They aren't the magic wands of the movies.
9. I don't lay down blanket rules for all children. If I had children, I'd teach them to use and to respect firearms, then assess their maturity.
10. I don't trust statistics, as the method of gathering and analyzing them is rarely given. And in any case, numbers are irrelevant to rights.
11. I have no idea what you're talking about.
12. Teddy Kennedy was on the terrorist watch list. I object to any list that takes away rights through secretive means and has no due process.
13. Medical journals ought to address medical subjects. Besides, peer review is not a guarantee against bias. Its purpose is to assure that the article meets the standards of the field in question.
14. I'm not particularly worried about government agents breaking in to my home. That's an outside possibility. What I'm more concerned about is criminals doing the same. I do note that bounty hunters get addresses wrong and have killed innocents.
15. I prefer gun grabber to pro-criminal, but taking away firearms from good citizens does give an advantage to those who wish to break the law.
Perhaps you can see that I'm not an extremist. I certainly do not need therapy. What I support is my right to own, carry, and use firearms for lawful purposes--including self defense.
Since you give a Norse name for yourself, let me quote from the sayings of Odin, the Havamal:
A man in the open country must not
go more than one step
from his weapons;
because one can't be sure
when, outside on the roads,
a spear will be needed by a warrior.