The following response was posted by a rabid gun control advocate with the screen name Scotdot35. It was made following a video I submitted of Charlton Heston from the 1960’s when he was an advocate of minority civil rights. This person obviously hated Heston for later civil rights work with the NRA and attempts to explain, using the most blatantly dishonest arguments, why his hatred is entirely justified.
[My screen name], once again you oversimplify something to support your own silly, small-minded attitude about guns. Heston was “lampooned”, as you put it, because he allgned himself with, and became the public face of, an organisation that uses its political clout to ensure that the unfettered sale of guns to the American public, in order to maximise the profits of the arms manufacturers that it represents.
Now I’m not going to debate gun laws in the US with you. I’ve read enough of your posts to know that this is just about the only thing you have an opinion on, and you shout very loudly with your keyboard at anyone who suggests that the USA should have more rational gun laws. I know it’s absolutely pointless to try and change the mind of someone so deeply indoctrinated into that kind of thinking. So I’ll give you an analogy that hopefully give you an understanding of why ‘the left’ vilified Heston for his association with the NRA…
What if Heston was the public face of the tabacco lobby? What if, in the face of the PROVEN fact that cigarettes kill so many people every year, he was holding a packet of cigarettes in his hand shouting “From my cold, dead hand!”? Would you admire him so much then? I really doubt it.
This is the same argument that us people against guns have for the NRA. You might feel that they’re protecting your right to own guns. But they’re actually protecting arms manufacturer’s rights to sell guns for profit, and people need to be legally allowed to buy guns in order to make a profit from them. You can talk about your constitutional rights to bear arms all you like, but there are plenty of things that have been changed in that constitution over the years to fall in line with the prevailing social attitudes of the day. After all, you’re not living two hundred years ago, are you? It wasn’t even a part of the Bill of Rights anyway, that’s why it’s an amendment.
The last thing I will say is this: It is my true belief that there is only one kind of gun owner; someone who truly desires to kill someone at some point in their lives. Most want to do it legally, as in with an intruder or attacker. But that desires exists nonetheless. You might freely admit that this is the case, I have no idea. But if not, have a really good think about whether this is true for you. If you defend guns as much as you do, then I believe you simply just want to murder someone and get away with it.
Submitted by scottdot35 on Thu, 10/16/2014 – 00:54.
once again you oversimplify something to support your own silly, small-minded attitude about guns.
Am I really over-simplifying it or could it be that the only way you can make your ignorant and misinformed beliefs on the matter appear rational is by over-complicating it.
Heston was “lampooned”, as you put it, because he allgned himself with, and became the public face of, an organisation that uses its political clout to ensure that the unfettered sale of guns to the American public, in order to maximise the profits of the arms manufacturers that it represents.
And with your second sentence we have a perfect example of one of your ignorant and misinformed beliefs. The NRA does not represent or lobby for gun manufacturers, the organization that does that is the National Shooting Sports Foundation. They are the firearms industry’s trade association. The National Rifle Association is America’s longest-standing civil rights organization and its members contribute funds for the purpose of keeping ignorant and misinformed people like yourself from infringing on the rights and liberties of their citizens.
Now I’m not going to debate gun laws in the US with you.
Of course you won’t, fear of facts and basic logic have that effect on people.
I’ve read enough of your posts to know that this is just about the only thing you have an opinion on, and you shout very loudly with your keyboard at anyone who suggests that the USA should have more rational gun laws.
I actually have opinions on many things but the issue of firearms being a RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE sticks out like a sore thumb because — at least on SpikedNation — I am in the minority. I’m not sure how I shout with a keyboard, even figuratively speaking it’s not as if I write in all caps or end all my sentences with exclamation marks. But who are we kidding, this is a red herring, you can’t defend your assertion so you’re bitching about how you perceive I present mine. It’s irrelevant to the argument itself but you need some excuse why you’re afraid to defend your statist belief.
As far as “rational gun laws” are concerned, I don’t disagree with rational gun laws at all. Many states have been passing rational gun laws in the form of citizen carry laws for over ten years. My state just passed a rational law that decriminalizes people traveling with a firearm to and from work without a carry permit so long as it remains in the vehicle. The problem is that the laws you assert are “rational” are demonstrably not, they are infringements on basic liberties; regardless of whether or not you choose to recognize them.
I know it’s absolutely pointless to try and change the mind of someone so deeply indoctrinated into that kind of thinking.
Indoctrinated, I do not think you ever bothered to check the definition of that term, instead you merely use it to pejoratively dismiss views contrary to your own. Indoctrinated people are expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned. On the contrary, I have educated myself on the matter which I suspect is the reason you prefer to throw a never-ending list of pejorative accusations and false assumptions in lieu of addressing the argument on the merits.
So I’ll give you an analogy that hopefully give you an understanding of why ‘the left’ vilified Heston for his association with the NRA…
Something tells me that you’re about to give a false analogy that warps reality in a way that makes your belief appear to make sense.
What if Heston was the public face of the tobacco lobby?
Yep, nailed it! You’re making a fallacious argument from analogy.
What if, in the face of the PROVEN fact that cigarettes kill so many people every year, he was holding a packet of cigarettes in his hand shouting “From my cold, dead hand!”? Would you admire him so much then? I really doubt it.
The difference between these two things is very simple to see, yet something tells me you’ll bitch about how I “over-simplified it”. Cigarettes are PROVEN to be both addictive and cause cancers which lead to the deaths of innocent people every year. Cigarettes have no other purpose but to deliver a substance to the brain which leads to chemical dependence. There is NOTHING which promotes human well-being in cigarettes.
Firearms do not cause cancer nor lead to chemical dependency. In fact, beyond your over-simplified claim that firearms and cigarettes cause deaths, there is really no other comparison to be made. You’re merely trying to dishonestly tap into the rightful disgust for the former and direct it toward the latter.
In the right hands, firearms do promote human well-being, but it requires you acknowledge a few facts.
- Intraspecies predators exist within the human race. These individuals are not under the ties of the common law of reason and have no other rule but that of force and violence.
- Everyone has an inalienable right to life and liberty.
- As rights are meaningless without the ability to defend them, the right to employ reasonable force, including deadly force, also exists.
- The modern personal firearm is the most effective tool to this end.
- Therefore the right to keep and bears arms follows from the right to life and liberty, to infringe on the rights of the innocent and law abiding to own personal implements of force, you are in effect infringing on their ability to protect their life and liberty.
That is not indoctrination my friend, that is just simple fucking logic.
Would you admire him so much then? I really doubt it.
No I would not admire him but only because Tobacco DOES NOT EQUAL Firearms. Your argument was just destroyed.
This is the same argument that us people against guns have for the NRA.
That may be the case, but it also the reason I disagree. The argument is fallacious, you people are drawing a parallel between two entirely unrelated objects. More people die in car crashes every year than tobacco and firearms yet I don’t see you drawing a comparison between vehicle manufacturers and the tobacco lobby. Seems your attempted logic is a tad bit inconsistent.
But they’re actually protecting arms manufacturer’s rights to sell guns for profit, and people need to be legally allowed to buy guns in order to make a profit from them.
No, again, that’s the NSSF not the NRA. But it really sounds as if your hate is rooted in capitalism and the free market more than firearms. Maybe you should focus more on that and stop trying to fuck law abiding Americans who possess firearms merely because you’re pissed that the company who manufactured it make money.
You can talk about your constitutional rights to bear arms all you like, but there are plenty of things that have been changed in that constitution over the years to fall in line with the prevailing social attitudes of the day.
OK, what’s your point? If you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment then have it. I’d rather gun-haters attempt to do that and just be honest about their end goal.
After all, you’re not living two hundred years ago, are you? It wasn’t even a part of the Bill of Rights anyway, that’s why it’s an amendment.
No, we’re not living 200 years ago. 200 years ago black people were forbidden from owning firearms, now they can. That’s called progress in my book. Also, you might want to educate yourself on American history. The 2nd Amendment is in fact part of the Bill of Rights. It is indeed an amendment, but that’s because the Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments. You really are ignorant of American history, it is no wonder you completely fail to grasp the importance we place on firearms ownership.
It is my true belief that there is only one kind of gun owner; someone who truly desires to kill someone at some point in their lives.
Thank you for admitting that you are absolutely prejudiced and providing the root motivation for your presenting such bullshit arguments. Your honesty is appreciated.
Most want to do it legally, as in with an intruder or attacker.
This assertion is based on nothing more than you wish to demonize the people you disagree with. It’s no different than when a racist claims he truly believes that there is only one kind of black man, those who desire to rape white women at some point in their lives. It’s not based in reality. It’s fabricated from his own bigotry, like you are doing now.
If you defend guns as much as you do, then I believe you simply just want to murder someone and get away with it.
Why is that statement bullshit? Because if a gun owner shoots someone who is attempting to cause them serious bodily harm then they have not committed murder, because self-defense is not murder. If a woman is about to be raped and she manages to shoot and kill her would-be rapist, that’s not murder your ignorant fucking fool.
Jeeze man, you really have shown me the scary depths to which the mind of a gun hating bigot will sink to maintain his hatred.
NOTE: I included my use colorful language and expletives to honestly represent the exchange.
by John Tremblay
| Comments Off on “All Gun Owners Truly Desire to Kill Someone”
In a recent opinion piece published in my local paper on October 2nd titled “Gun control has become taboo issue” by Joseph Cotto, he details how the political winds have shifted with regard to the subject while dividing defenders of the 2nd Amendment in to two arbitrary groups based on nothing more than how much each group agrees with him. Cotto’s entire opinion piece can be read in PDF here.
Cotto opens his piece by claiming that “Not many people are talking about gun control these days.” That statement is correct so long as we’re discussing politicians and discount the hysterics of groups like Mom’s Demand Action, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Everytown for Gun Safety. All of which are faux grass-roots groups created by billionaire statist Michael Bloomberg. Discounting those groups, I would agree, not many politicians are pushing unconstitutional gun control laws. Catto’s asserted cause of this reluctance to press the subject is also likely accurate. After the Colorado state legislature passed a pointless law making the mere possession of a magazine which holds more than 15 rounds a crime, as well as criminalizing the private sale or transfer of a firearm without state permission, the citizens of that state decided to forcefully retire two sitting state senators via a recall election in 2013; a vote which Bloomberg threw $350,000 at to support the civilian disarmament lobby.
I also agree with Catto’s assertion that “[w]hile these were just state races, and the electorate in each was surely skewed toward highly motivated voters — in this case, anti-gun control advocates — a message was sent loud and clear on the national stage.” In deed it was Mr. Catto, politicians, more than anything, fear losing power and will avoid touching anything that could cause we the people to strip them of that power.
Catto’s underlying true beliefs on the subject begin to peak through when he writes “[i]t seems likely that fewer legislatures will take up firearm safety bills in the future, especially in states where recalls are constitutional.” Did you notice the misuse of the phrase “firearm safety”? If you haven’t been paying attention to the debate in the past few years, “firearm safety” has become the dishonest code words used by the civilian disarmament lobby in place of “gun control”. A majority of the public now understands that gun control is in practice nothing more than people control. When the average Joe hears the phrase “firearm safety” they do not associate it with gun control, but that is exactly what they mean.
For example, what the anti-gun Colorado legislators passed into law was in no way related to firearm safety, it was just the same gun control nonsense that’s been around since the 80’s when Sarah Brady living high on the hog after her husband was almost killed. The Colorado law stated that after July 1, 2013, the citizens of the state would be stripped of their right to purchase or possess a magazine holding more than 15 rounds. Standard capacity magazines –which people like Cotto would incorrectly label Large Capacity – that were obtained prior to July 1, 2013 could be kept.
Catto considers that law to be a “Gun Safety” law, but what is it exactly about a 15 round magazine that makes it safe while the standard capacity mag that holds 30 rounds is somehow dangerous? If the 30 round magazine is so dangerous, why grandfather those in circulation? Why are police still allowed to use such a dangerous item and why allow people from out-of-state to bring them into the state for personal use? The answer is quite clear, limiting magazine capacity isn’t about safety at all; that’s a lie. It is about CONTROL and a means to slowly erode the rights of the people.
All of this begs a simple question: What is gun control’s purpose? Or, more specifically, who is the intended target of gun control policies? Perhaps this is the basest, yet most prescient, question of all: Who should be allowed to own a firearm?
No sir, Mr. Catto, the question has never been “Who should be allowed to own a firearm?” because the premise assumes that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right but a privilege handed down by the good graces of government. We don’t ask who should be allowed to speak in public or publish a books? The question is “Who should be stripped of their right to own a firearm?” And the answer to that question has been settled law for some time and why laws stripping violent felons of their right to own firearms have been on the books for decades.
It seems obvious that early American senators and congressmen secured the right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense or hunting game.
I’m sorry Mr. Catto, that is not only wrong but shows either a willful ignorance of history or a dishonest revision of it. The 2nd Amendment was not secured for self-defense or hunting game. Its purpose was clearly explained by those early American legislators. Richard Henry Lee (Senator for the State of Virginia) wrote, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Joseph Story, a Congressman from the State of Massachusetts, wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution (1833) that, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” No sir, the 2nd Amendment was most assuredly not secured merely for self-defense and hunting, but rather is a last resort check on government tyranny.
Cotto goes on to argue that “[The Founders] did not intend to give Constitutional protections to violent criminals. Therefore, it’s not in the spirit of the Second Amendment to say anybody should be given a gun for any purpose.” Well obviously they did not intent that but his claim that Second Amendment advocates want everyone — regardless of their criminal history — to possess a firearm for any purpose, is a straw man argument.
Decent people should not have their rights infringed on account of a troublesome minority. Surely, most of those who want to purchase a gun through the legal process are concerned about protecting human life or catching a few pheasants, among other wildlife.
This is where Cotto begins to set up his false dichotomy by dividing Second Amendment advocates into two arbitrary categories; people like Cotto who mistakenly believe gun rights concern shooting a mugger or birds, and what he pejoratively labels Second Amendment fundamentalist, which he imagines to be NRA loving lunatic red necks who, he claims, think that murderers and rapist should be armed. I’m not even exaggerating, he actually writes, “The Second Amendment fundamentalists, on the other hand, make no distinction between concerned citizens and homicidal maniacs. They believe that there should be no regulations of any kind insofar as the sale of firearms is concerned.”
Mr. Cotto conveniently fails to cite even one example of anyone actually stating such nonsense. The fact is his so-called “fundamentalists” are merely conjured up fantasies to make his statist views appear rational by comparison. He continues building up his straw man with the following.
Their ideology is rooted not in the concept of self-defense, but self-identity. Radical anti-gun control activists evaluate their own personal worth on the basis of firearm ownership.
This is how Mr. Cotto mentally dismisses anyone who dares attack his faith that gun-control laws actually affect criminals — who by definition do not obey laws. I imagine anyone that provides evidence or rational arguments demonstrating the gun-control measures he advocates have and would fail are mentally placed in the “fundamentalist” column as a means to avoid defending his unfounded gun-control beliefs.
Their ideology is rooted not in the concept of self-defense, but self-identity. Radical anti-gun control activists evaluate their own personal worth on the basis of firearm ownership.
No Mr. Cotto, we so-called “fundamentalist” do not evaluate our own personal worth on the basis of firearms ownership. We begin with the premise that all innocent human life has worth and from that we derive the right to keep and bear arms as a natural right in order to defend that worth against those who might decide to exploit or take someone’s life.
For the radicals, owning a gun is not a precautionary measure, but a status symbol. This is why they tend to lose their marbles when any mention of firearm control is made. If practical restrictions are passed into law, then their race to own the biggest, most dangerous gun will be halted. Perish the thought.
I guess anyone who dares acquire a firearm of which Joseph Cotto disapprove is just a radical. Why can it not be both a a status symbol and precautionary measure. For example, I own multiple firearms for different reasons, precautionary measure being among them. But I also own them as a status symbol of my liberty and living in a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. I also consider each firearm I own to be a symbolic middle finger to people like Mr. Cotto, who mendaciously demonize people for daring to own something they personally think others either should not possess or should beg permission from the State before acquiring.
The people losing their marbles are entirely on the side of gun-control. Only those who have had a complete break with reality would argue for the sort of nonsense being pushed by gun-control advocates like Mr. Cotto. Sarah Brady, Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Bloomberg, and the other elitist gun-control power brokers are now having their asses handed to them by the very people whose rights they seek to slowly strip away. They are the ones who lose their marbles when their agendas are thwarted.
That last sentence is a clear example of Mr. Catto’s ignorance regarding firearms, “biggest” does equal most dangerous. Any firearm, regardless of size, is dangerous when in the hands of someone who has no clue how to operate it; someone like Mr. Catto for example.
Hopefully, more Americans will come to recognize that the Second Amendment is not to be trampled upon, yet ought to be interpreted in a reasonable fashion.
It should be pointed out to Mr. Catto that words have meanings and because “reasonable” means based on good sense, that term is not applicable to the types of laws he advocates. The laws favored by people like Mr. Catto do in fact trample the 2nd Amendment, but he and his comrades are blind to that fact due to their mistaken beliefs concerning the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms.
While the political debate over gun control is unlikely to improve during the foreseeable future, if enough people search for common ground and ignore extremist voices, then a new generation of legislators might come about.
The debate over gun control has been improving for over 10 years. Every year another State repeals laws that once criminalized the right to bear arms and the myths and lies spread by gun-control advocates are debunked, the debate improves. Every time a federal court strikes down an anti-gun law, the debate improves. It is my sincere hope that the gun control debate improves to the point that the real extremist — those who assert stripping people of their rights is a reasonable — are seen for the irrational Statist they truly are.
by John Tremblay
| Tagged: gun control
, Joseph Cotto
| Comments Off on Response to Joseph Cotto’s “Gun control has become taboo issue”