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.


The Response

[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.


The Critique

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.

  1. 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.
  2. Everyone has an inalienable right to life and liberty.
  3. As rights are meaningless without the ability to defend them, the right to employ reasonable force, including deadly force, also exists.
  4. The modern personal firearm is the most effective tool to this end.
  5. 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 | Categories: Musing | Comments Off on “All Gun Owners Truly Desire to Kill Someone”